Time for a game of citation tennis:
Emphasis added.
Same responsibilities, huh? Then it’s your turn to cite the California law requiring the caregivers of children to ensure that the child is on a leash and tagged by an identification tag issued by the county clerk or child control officer.
The law doesn’t treat your puppy the same as a child, no matter how hard you cross your eyes and wish upon a star that it were true.
Oh please. ChildLESS people obsess about what they don’t have in their lives. Which is one of the many reasons why the word childfree exists, so people understand that we aren’t obsessing about the fact that we “lack” children. Calling someone childfree tells everyone there is no need to feel sorry for the fact there are no children there.
The only fuss I see here is you don’t like a word. And a section of society.
I call myself childless, and I don’t obsess about what I don’t have in my life. (Ok, I guess I could use some pizza in my life righ now, and later some lube… ) I had never heard the term childfree until I came to the Dope.
That’s false, as has already been proven, and a child has about a thousand rights no dog has. A dog doesn’t even have the right to LIVE, legally speaking. If I own a dog I can have it killed whenever it pleases me to do so.
Dogs are not equal, legally, to children. That is objective fact. Suck it up. Our laws confer rights on human beings, not so much on dogs.
No, you don’t. Your responsibilities to a dog are pitifully miniscule as compared to the responsibilities of a parent. Comparatively speaking, taking care of a dog is ridiculously easy; I know, I’ve done both, which you have not. You can’t just lock a baby in a crate and then leave it home alone.
As much as you want to believe being a dog owner confers upon you some sort of understanding as to what parenthood is like, it does not.
It’s not, which is why I’m so glad that it so rarely happens. For all your bitching and whining, the simple fact is that it’s a very rare phenomenon to be inconvenienced by a child. Or a dog, for that matter.
What does my possibily being at the end of my rope have to do with anything?
Because you teach children in a defined, controlled situation you know more than I do about the state of stores in Southern California? Who is it that is getting stupider? And what do numbers have to do with it? One child screaming in Squall Mart out of a hundred is still one too many and is still something that should be stopped. You know you wouldn’t accept it if I pointed out that hundreds of dogs don’t bite, so we should just accept the ones that do. Because, you know, their owners might have been at the end of their ropes or something.
I responded to your request for what law was being broken by allowing children to scream in stores.
It isn’t the mocking I am addressing, it is your frothing at the mouth at the idea that I dare to dislike obnoxious children and parents. I don’t jump in to defend people who think their dogs should be allowed to run loose all day, why do you jump to defend people that let their children scream in stores?
As are you. You insist that I must not only allow but happily endure all the assaults on my senses, property and pocketbook because CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE, and now you want to back pedal and say that I must do that even tho that “future” is likely to be bleak?
Actually, I raised two. If you paid attention and didn’t assume, you wouldn’t look like an, er, idiot…
The social contract also holds that children should be seen and not heard, or at least it used to. Let’s do that.
Another one who cannot pay attention. There is no parking at all on my street, because having parking per house for at least four cars between the garage and the driveway isn’t enough for most of the folks living here. We only dare to use the area in front of our house if we are going to bring the trailer home or if more than one friend is going to come over.
Now, why is there no parking? Because some people have converted their garages into bedrooms, because some houses have two or more families living in them, because S Cal is car-centric as well as child-centric so everyone has at least one car, usually an overly large SUV. Each.
I don’t care if it is the grocery store or the movies, screaming babies don’t need to be at either one. These days, many (most?) families have both parents working, so the kid can stay whereever it is that it stays while the parents work until Mom can go by the store. If she is a stay at home, then yes she can jolly well wait until Dad gets home, or she can get another stay at home in the neighborhood to watch the kids. Or she can be a parent and teach her seven year old that running amok isn’t acceptable. Since when does Mom’s convenience trump the comfort of everyone around her?
Yes, the same responsibilities - I didn’t say the exact same ones. You are trying to throw up strawmen by pretending I did. Caregivers of children have the same responsibilities to keep their children from breaking the noise and nuisance laws that I have regarding my dogs. There are more confinement laws regarding children in cars than there are for dogs, and fewer for children in stores than for dogs but it ends up being a wash. The only place where the laws get completely ridiculous is the attractive nuisance laws.
Which of course completely ignores the fact that I never said anything about laws that affect whether or not a child or dog should be running amok in a store…
Please show me where you have misunderstood the access laws for service dogs.
Which, of course, if you actually read what I post, you would see I haven’t said anything like this. The closest I have come is to say that service dogs and those in training have the same rights of access that children do.
Sigh. Try to pay attention, eh? I was talking about my responsibilities to those around me, in a store, when I am training a service dog or just using my service dog.
Never said anything of the sort.
Well, good for you that you are lucky enough to not have to deal with screaming children all that often, or have to side step them as they run by. You do realize that not everyone can be so lucky?
No, people who don’t obsess about it are people who, “don’t have kids”. But you tried to reopen it after Anaamika so eloquently stated it. As she explained it, I wasn’t talking about her. I DEFINITELY was talking about you though.
It’s a far smaller subsection than the one you don’t like. 
FWIW I don’t find you as intolerable as the flak you are getting here. Don’t want kids? Fine. Don’t like kids? Fine.
Two posts after you posted the above, you posted the below:
I say again: a dog is not a human and has very minimal legal rights: basically, the “right” not to be treated with cruelty. The dog (even a service dog) has no “rights of access” at all - the “rights” are the rights of the human whose disability is serviced by the service dog.
And so the point goes sailing merrily over your head.
The fact is that the use of the ending “…less” is simply a neutral way of describing something that is without something: any feelings or other connotations exist purely in the minds of the observer, and depend entirely on whether the lack being discussed is considered a good thing or a bad thing.
A self-labelled “drugless practitioner” is usually proclaming that the lack of drugs is a good thing - because in context we understand that he or she isn’t so poor that s/he cannot afford drugs, or so uneducated that s/he does not know how to use drugs, but rather that in his or her opinion the use of no drugs in the healing process is a benefit.
Similarly, if a person and not a chair is labelled “armless”, we understand that the lack of arms is a bad thing because it is fucking obvious that no-one in their right minds would wish to lack arms, not because of the use of the term “…less”. Labelling them “arm-free” just sounds wierd.
Children are obviously a middle case, something that most people want but some do not - like middle aged men and hair. Most men don’t wish to be bald, but that doesn’t mean that “bald” is somehow a bad word, and bald men should henceforth proudly proclaim themselves “hair-free” if they have chosen, for reasons of fashion, to shave their heads. It would just sound stupid and pretentious - as does “child-free”.
Edit: heh heh “Heir-free”
I guess you haven’t grasped the concept of “single parenthood”, but sorry…children need to be supervised. They also need to learn about the world around them. You can’t do that by leaving them home.
Of course you have to live with it. Unless it’s the rare situation where a child is flipping out and damaging things (and I’ve never seen a meltdown like that in my life), it’s all a part of growing up. Oh…and you cannot “make” a child gather their composure when they’re upset. If you’re lucky, they work through it in a few minutes. If you’re the parent of a child who has a particularly hard time with this, I guarantee it is more painful for the parent than the spectators.
Again…you have no idea how the real world operates. You don’t leave small children home alone while you do errands. Nor should you be expected to. Children are part of life…even when they’re being unpleasant.
Personal ads one can’t wait to see:
instead of “White single childless bald athiest, female, seeks …” we can look forward to "Melanin-free relationship-free child-free hair-free religion-free, Y chromosome free, seeks … "
The folks in advertising who decided “sugar-free gum” sounded better than “sugarless gum” have a lot to answer for. 
Thus disproving your point. “A dog and a human have equal legal rights”, while not accurate, is not the same as “A dog is biologically identical to a human.”
I’ll repeat the request: In what post does curlcoat or anyone else claim that pets are the same as humans? And please don’t play silly word games regarding laws, love, care, or anything else irrelevant to the discussion. The claim has been made that curlcoat said that dogs are humans. Prove it.
Speaking of inacuracies … where the fuck did I ever claim she said “A dog is biologically identical to a human”?
I said, for her information, that dogs are not humans - contrary to her stated claim that they are (or ought to be) treated the same way. The claim that others are attacking her for not actually knowing the physicial difference is a pure straw-man on your part … and I would appreciate you not using quotes when making your own shit up and claiming I said it, thanks.
Evidently the use if sarcasm, like accurate quotation, is lost on you, if you do not understand that “…will never become one” was a rhetorical flourish - I readily state, for those hard of thinking, that I am not under the impression that CC doesn’t actually know this.
Regardless of whatever word games you continiue to want to play, the term “childless” does imply that something is lacking. It’s unfortunate the in today’s society, it’s assumed that anyone without kids really wants them but has so far been unable to produce them. “Childfree” may sound pretentious to you, but it gets the point across. Of course, the next question is usually “Why do you hate children?” Equally insulting and annoying.
Is it really hard to grok that some people simply don’t want kids? Apparently so.
Nowhere, in those exact words. I apologize.
You just IMPLIED it.