Well it’s an important distinction. You believe that unprovoked misconduct is just as bad as misconduct which is provoked.
Fine, that’s your opinion. I happen to disagree.
I would agree with that. It’s a matter of values, but Spice Weasel’s values seem to be pretty unusual based on my general experience.
None of which, IMO, should be taken to imply that this letter, if real, was justified.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s an app for that.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
You believe that unprovoked misconduct is just as bad as misconduct which is provoked.
[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by provoked? In the example of the water balloon being thrown, that’s intentional. A child with autism making sounds is not intentionally provoking others.
So some people don’t like those sounds. Tough shit. People need to suck it up and quit being whiny bitches. Neighborhoods have children, barking dogs, traffic, loud music, parking on the street, garbage cans left out…and a shit ton of other annoyances. If you don’t like it, move to the country and eat a lot of peaches.
There are lots of things I don’t like. I don’t like the sound of some people’s voices that I work with. I don’t like people mowing their lawns in my neighborhood when I’m sleeping in on Saturday morning. I don’t like the fucking garbage trucks making all kinds of racket. But you know what? I’m not the center of the universe, so I just move on and focus on other more important things than my minor annoyances that in the end are petty and stupid.
If someone sent me a letter like that I would laugh my ass off. So they don’t like my retard son? Hmmm hang on let me check and see if I give a fuck.
Nope. Sure don’t.
There are actually laws against most of the things you’ve noted; living in a city means that you will not be able to make all the noise you want and bother your neighbours, whether from your barking dog, your loud music, your mower at inappropriate hours, or your autistic child who screams outside excessively (assuming that is what happened to provoke this letter, not just the occasional hoot).
As for the autistic child not being intentionally annoying, that’s kind of moot; it’s like bringing small children to a restaurant - if they start to make too much noise, the parents are obligated to do something to mitigate the problem they are causing. That’s the same with the parents of an autistic child - they can’t just throw up their hands and say, “Well, my child is autistic! You’ll just have to suck it up and live with all the noise he makes!”
Done in response to misconduct of another person.
In the case of the child with autism, the (allegedly) provocative misconduct is (1) the parents’ (alleged) failure to adequately monitor and police their child; and (2) the parents’ (apparent) acting as though they expect the neighborhood to cater to their child’s behavior.
So if your neighbor were playing extremely loud music 24 hours a day, you would never ever complain to them or to the authorities about it?
Anyway, you raise a different issue. My point was that if somebody misbehaves under provocation of having been mistreated, they are not as worthy of condemnation of someone who engages in the same misbehavior with no provocation at all. Similarly, if somebody provokes misbehavior against them through inconsiderate behavior, they do not deserve as much sympathy as if they had not been inconsiderate.
I take it you agree with these principles?
There is nothing in the letter to suggest that the child wasn’t monitored or policed. The ONLY complaint mentioned is that he is allowed outside, where he makes loud noises. There is nothing “provocative” about letting a child go outside and make noise, any more than it’s provocative to mow your lawn.
As far as #2 goes, expecting their neighbors to tolerate their son’s presence, indeed his mere existence, is not even a teeny tiny bit provocative.
As I recall, the article talks about how the child loves to throw balls in the yard; and throws balls into other peoples’ yards so often that the mother put her name and address on the ball so that it is easier for the ball to be returned.
To me, that strongly suggests the mother is not adequately policing her son. Especially since parents have a tendency to spin.
I disagree, depending on the type of noise and the circumstances. Certainly mowing your lawn at 3:00am is provocative.
Expecting your neighbors to expend time and energy returning balls to you suggests a good deal of arrogance – if it is something that happens very frequently.
What should neighbors expect from a family with a member who behaves disruptively without any developmental disabilities?
I’m not really seeing the big deal here. You happen to see a ball in your back yard, you toss it back, very little time and energy invested. Whether they’re “constantly” falling in the yard or not doesn’t affect me one way or the other, unless one happens to ping me in the head.
Good for you. I suspect most people would get annoyed if a neighbor’s child’s play balls were constantly falling in their yard. The occasional ball is cute, but at a certain point it becomes annoying – to a lot of people, but not to you. If a ball whizzed past and just missed your head (or your child’s head) it would not bother you in the slightest, even if it happened a few times a day.
This is retarded thinking.
There was more on this story on the news last night; it seems that the ball he likes to send over fences is a soccer ball. I spend A LOT of time on my yard; if a soccer ball was coming over the fence and wrecking my flowers, I would not be pleased.
They also showed the noise the kid makes (I think) - it didn’t seem too bad. Not shrieking, more like moaning happily. All day, every day, that could get pretty tiresome too, though.
To me, it suggests he doesn’t have motor control.
Parents aren’t the only people who have a tendency to spin.
If there is one shred of evidence that the child was “whaling” at 3am, then you have a leg to stand on. As it is, you don’t, no matter how you try to spin it.
Well even if it did not damage your flowers, it would undermine your enjoyment of your yard. Because you would always be worrying a tiny bit about whether a soccer ball was going to come flying over and clock you. Or knock your drink out of your hand. Or strike your child.
(Except of course for PoorYorick – it wouldn’t bother him in the slightest.)
Anyway, if it’s a soccer ball, my earlier point stands – the child’s parents should set up an area enclosed with netting.
I’m not sure what your point is here. Do you agree that if the child is constantly kicking soccer balls into other peoples’ yards, those other people can be expected to get annoyed about the situation?
Do you agree that it is inconsiderate to allow your child who lacks motor control to regularly kick soccer balls in the backyard, knowing full well that the balls will regularly and frequently land in neighbors’ yards?
You have the burden of proof since you (seem to) claim that it is NEVER provocative to allow your child to go outside and make noise. And you (seem to) claim that it is NEVER provocative to mow your lawn.
I claim that it depends on the circumstances.
Lol, nice try at shifting the burden of proof.
I have to admit that I don’t understand all the outrage. So one person voiced an unpleasant opinion. And…? There’s lot of crazies and socio/psychopaths out there. People, Ann Coulter’s out there!! Why make such a big deal? Yesterday I walked past a seemingly-schizophrenic homeless man who yelled an insult at me- the media was not alerted and it did not go viral on Facebook. Why do people care so much about the misguided opinion of one single person? If I received the letter, I think I’d roll my eyes, maybe show a couple of friends so that we can commiserate about what a miserable person this was, and I’d be done with it.
I don’t get it.
I think much of the reason the letter is so hurtful and painful is that it reminds the childs’ parents of an unpleasant reality – that their child really is likely to have difficulty getting and keeping a job; that their child really is likely to have a lot of difficulty with romantic relationships; that their child may very well need lifelong care; and so on.
(Imagine if the letter had seriously asserted that the child was actually a space alien disguised as a human and urged the parents to put him on a rocketship to Mars. It may have been disturbing but it would not be nearly as hurtful.)
It’s kind of like calling a fat person “fat” – logically it should not be hurtful since it is true and the fat person is aware of it – but often it still is.
I used to work (and am still on Facebook with) a woman who, every few minutes, would clear her throat, and this sounded like she was hacking up body parts. Another colleague who had a child with Tourette’s Syndrome (and no, he didn’t curse - he too made involuntary sounds) told me that she believed that this woman actually had this, and not necessary allergies, for which she was seeing a specialist.
One day, the throat-clearer was driving me crazy, and I came very close to telling her that she either had to stop doing that or take the rest of the day off, and then realized that it bothered her a heckuva lot more than it bothered me, KWIM?
That’s another issue altogether.