CDZ USMB POLL: Woman shot, killed by two-year-old son - Who is responsible for this woman's death?

[koshergrl]

So parents should not be allowed to own horses, pools, buckets, or weapons, because it's theoretically possible that a child might get hurt.

What about tubs?

Parents should be intelligent.

I'll let that sink in for a moment.

A parent who has a backyard pool and doesn't (A) teach their child to swim at a very early age (arguably, all children should be taught to swim, considering that infants can swim from birth, and it may not necessarily be the family pool, but some Idiot Neighbor who's at fault and (B) fence that pool in before the kid can walk and (C) explain to the kid that deep water is dangerous, is as reprehensible as the stupid cow who puts a gun in her purse and sets the purse down next to the two-year-old in the grocery wagon.

As for horses, or any animal, you teach the child that this is a living thing, not a toy, and you teach the child how to comport itself around the animal.

Otherwise, it's not the animal's fault if something happens. It's you the "NOTMYFAULTNOTMYFAULTIT'SLIBRULSFAULTNOTMINE, NOPE, NOPE, NOPE!" idiot who, in a sane society, would have been questioned for your ability to breed.

A child of five can be taught that a living creature is dangerous till the cows come home, and still forget what they're capable of and run up behind one in the flash of an eye. And infants who can swim can slip on the pavement, hit their heads and drown regardless.

The idea that children obey perfectly if they're correctly taught is laughable.

So, what are you saying? We should ban everything that is deemed " dangerous? If that is the case we need to start with walking and driving.... THAT would be laughable.

No, Im saying what I said. I appreciate your desire to continually attribute more to me, but I'm pretty clear. Blaming parents for accidents when they are reasonably cautious is asinine.

There you go again, misreading (maybe on purpose, maybe not) my post. I asked a question. Is that difficult for you to understand?
This was a very preventable "accident", If the woman in question had properly secured her firearm, this would not have happened. Did she make a mistake? Yes. Was she negligent? Yes. Was she reasonably cautious? Obviously not. So to blame her is not asinine, it is reasonable.

I haven't misread anything. You are the one doing that, when you keep saying "so what you mean is...." or "what you're saying is...". Dishonest and sloppy thinkers use that tactic when the person they're arguing with doesn't say anything they can argue with, or when they are just mindlessly pushing an agenda, regardless of what the conversation actually is. I say what I mean. You try to change what I say and then pretend that I actually said that, and argue against it. You fabricate the discussion, then you pretend it's what I said. It isn't.

People who do that get ignored really fast. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with them. Even (or maybe especially) in the CDZ.

 

[koshergrl]

A child of five can be taught that a living creature is dangerous till the cows come home, and still forget what they're capable of and run up behind one in the flash of an eye. And infants who can swim can slip on the pavement, hit their heads and drown regardless.

The idea that children obey perfectly if they're correctly taught is laughable.

So, what are you saying? We should ban everything that is deemed " dangerous? If that is the case we need to start with walking and driving.... THAT would be laughable.

No, Im saying what I said. I appreciate your desire to continually attribute more to me, but I'm pretty clear. Blaming parents for accidents when they are reasonably cautious is asinine.

There you go again, misreading (maybe on purpose, maybe not) my post. I asked a question. Is that difficult for you to understand?
This was a very preventable "accident", If the woman in question had properly secured her firearm, this would not have happened. Did she make a mistake? Yes. Was she negligent? Yes. Was she reasonably cautious? Obviously not. So to blame her is not asinine, it is reasonable.

I haven't misread anything. You are the one doing that, when you keep saying "so what you mean is...." or "what you're saying is...". Dishonest and sloppy thinkers use that tactic when the person they're arguing with doesn't say anything they can argue with, or when they are just mindlessly pushing an agenda, regardless of what the conversation actually is. I say what I mean. You try to change what I say and then pretend that I actually said that, and argue against it. You fabricate the discussion, then you pretend it's what I said. It isn't.

People who do that get ignored really fast. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with them. Even (or maybe especially) in the CDZ.

Red:
??? Say what? oldsoul is using those phrases because of your inquiries.

So, what are you saying? We should ban everything that is deemed " dangerous? If that is the case we need to start with walking and driving.... THAT would be laughable.

Just how do you expect someone to respond to questions of that nature other than by saying "[Yes/No], what I'm saying is...?"

Actually, no. He was not responding to my questions. He was changing the narrative.

 

[320 Years of History]

So, what are you saying? We should ban everything that is deemed " dangerous? If that is the case we need to start with walking and driving.... THAT would be laughable.

No, Im saying what I said. I appreciate your desire to continually attribute more to me, but I'm pretty clear. Blaming parents for accidents when they are reasonably cautious is asinine.

There you go again, misreading (maybe on purpose, maybe not) my post. I asked a question. Is that difficult for you to understand?
This was a very preventable "accident", If the woman in question had properly secured her firearm, this would not have happened. Did she make a mistake? Yes. Was she negligent? Yes. Was she reasonably cautious? Obviously not. So to blame her is not asinine, it is reasonable.

I haven't misread anything. You are the one doing that, when you keep saying "so what you mean is...." or "what you're saying is...". Dishonest and sloppy thinkers use that tactic when the person they're arguing with doesn't say anything they can argue with, or when they are just mindlessly pushing an agenda, regardless of what the conversation actually is. I say what I mean. You try to change what I say and then pretend that I actually said that, and argue against it. You fabricate the discussion, then you pretend it's what I said. It isn't.

People who do that get ignored really fast. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with them. Even (or maybe especially) in the CDZ.

Red:
??? Say what? oldsoul is using those phrases because of your inquiries.

So, what are you saying? We should ban everything that is deemed " dangerous? If that is the case we need to start with walking and driving.... THAT would be laughable.

Just how do you expect someone to respond to questions of that nature other than by saying "[Yes/No], what I'm saying is...?"

Actually, no. He was not responding to my questions. He was changing the narrative.

You're right. I miss-followed the sequence of the conversation. Apologies.

I've deleted my remarks. I'll follow up by asking the mod to delete the whole post. If you'd do the same re: your response to my comments, that'd be great.

 

[oldsoul]

Parents should be intelligent.

I'll let that sink in for a moment.

A parent who has a backyard pool and doesn't (A) teach their child to swim at a very early age (arguably, all children should be taught to swim, considering that infants can swim from birth, and it may not necessarily be the family pool, but some Idiot Neighbor who's at fault and (B) fence that pool in before the kid can walk and (C) explain to the kid that deep water is dangerous, is as reprehensible as the stupid cow who puts a gun in her purse and sets the purse down next to the two-year-old in the grocery wagon.

As for horses, or any animal, you teach the child that this is a living thing, not a toy, and you teach the child how to comport itself around the animal.

Otherwise, it's not the animal's fault if something happens. It's you the "NOTMYFAULTNOTMYFAULTIT'SLIBRULSFAULTNOTMINE, NOPE, NOPE, NOPE!" idiot who, in a sane society, would have been questioned for your ability to breed.

A child of five can be taught that a living creature is dangerous till the cows come home, and still forget what they're capable of and run up behind one in the flash of an eye. And infants who can swim can slip on the pavement, hit their heads and drown regardless.

The idea that children obey perfectly if they're correctly taught is laughable.

So, what are you saying? We should ban everything that is deemed " dangerous? If that is the case we need to start with walking and driving.... THAT would be laughable.

No, Im saying what I said. I appreciate your desire to continually attribute more to me, but I'm pretty clear. Blaming parents for accidents when they are reasonably cautious is asinine.

There you go again, misreading (maybe on purpose, maybe not) my post. I asked a question. Is that difficult for you to understand?
This was a very preventable "accident", If the woman in question had properly secured her firearm, this would not have happened. Did she make a mistake? Yes. Was she negligent? Yes. Was she reasonably cautious? Obviously not. So to blame her is not asinine, it is reasonable.

I haven't misread anything. You are the one doing that, when you keep saying "so what you mean is...." or "what you're saying is...". Dishonest and sloppy thinkers use that tactic when the person they're arguing with doesn't say anything they can argue with, or when they are just mindlessly pushing an agenda, regardless of what the conversation actually is. I say what I mean. You try to change what I say and then pretend that I actually said that, and argue against it. You fabricate the discussion, then you pretend it's what I said. It isn't.

People who do that get ignored really fast. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with them. Even (or maybe especially) in the CDZ.

Asking a question is now "dishonest and sloppy" thinking? If I am to clearly understand what you are saying and what your arguement is, I must ask questions to be sure I have all the information, and to clear-up any uncertainties I may have on your position. If that makes me intollerable then so be it. I refuse to have a discussion with someone who is unable or unwilling to clarify any statements they make. Therefore, please clear this up for me. Am I allowed to ask you questions or is this discussion over?