08-02-2009, 09:17 PM
All that wordage and you didn't address the issue.
I did, and you've missed the point yet again.
The entire point of my posts was the fact that you made outrageous claims with little to no information to support them. You were not the only one to infer what was not demonstrated, but you were the only one to say:
It appears that this child will grow up to always need someone else to control his behavior - cops, prison system, an overbearing wife. This is no way to handle poor behavior - nor is it a way give your child a free circus ride. Circumstances and poor judgment aside, this is likely a small window into the way this parent treats her child. Sad.
You've said "appears" twice and I'm at at a loss to see the objective evidence of your apparitions. That's the issue. Until I know that the mother was abusing the child, I'm not making conjecture about the fate of the child or his environment.
You say you've struck up supportive conversations. In order to do so, you have to be there. If you are, there is the possibility of seeing and hearing actions in far greater detail than this video reveals. That resolution of detail and information is simply not present in the video, yet you somehow manage to divine enough information to make your predictions.
I'd like to know how you did that and on what information you based those predictions.
I don't know that it's categorically wrong to pull a toddler around by a harness and leash. There are certainly circumstances where that would be dangerous, and that would be wrong. But categorically? We disagree.
Admittedly, these are things children might do for themselves and not have imposed on them by an adult, but the point remains.
You've made no point here. You're now comparing apple to oranges, without relevance.
Have I jumped to conclusions? Of course. If that's you're issue, I concede.
If you had read any of my posts objectively, you wouldn't need to ask the question and answer it yourself.
As should you
Concede what, exactly? My assertions that you jumped to conclusions with no evidence? Done.
I would appreciate it if the personal attacks and innuendo were left out of this conversation.
Please cite the personal attacks and the innuendo I made.
You said "this is likely a small window into the way this parent treats her child." The problem with a small window it's limited view. She has raised your ire solely by her action, regardless of motive, and you've made statements that might even qualify as accusations regarding the future of this child. You categorize what you have not observed as "sad".
I find it sad that you don't have sufficient information to make outlandish conclusions, you make them anyway, you admit that you jumped to them, and don't see the obvious problems in doing so. So I ask you how you were raised.
Given your wordage, I think there's a far bigger window into your thought processes then the one you opened to her parenting skills.
- - -
And you are judging a situation based on a few seconds of grainy video.
You have no idea what happened. Could be Johnny Knoxville wannabe doing a "Jackass" routine. Could be a total hoax. Could be a child-abusing murderer.
You have no idea. But what you think happened has you outraged. Hope I never see you on a jury.
Ok, I could have been more succinct.
I did, and you've missed the point yet again.
The entire point of my posts was the fact that you made outrageous claims with little to no information to support them. You were not the only one to infer what was not demonstrated, but you were the only one to say:
It appears that this child will grow up to always need someone else to control his behavior - cops, prison system, an overbearing wife. This is no way to handle poor behavior - nor is it a way give your child a free circus ride. Circumstances and poor judgment aside, this is likely a small window into the way this parent treats her child. Sad.
You've said "appears" twice and I'm at at a loss to see the objective evidence of your apparitions. That's the issue. Until I know that the mother was abusing the child, I'm not making conjecture about the fate of the child or his environment.
You say you've struck up supportive conversations. In order to do so, you have to be there. If you are, there is the possibility of seeing and hearing actions in far greater detail than this video reveals. That resolution of detail and information is simply not present in the video, yet you somehow manage to divine enough information to make your predictions.
I'd like to know how you did that and on what information you based those predictions.
I don't know that it's categorically wrong to pull a toddler around by a harness and leash. There are certainly circumstances where that would be dangerous, and that would be wrong. But categorically? We disagree.
Admittedly, these are things children might do for themselves and not have imposed on them by an adult, but the point remains.
You've made no point here. You're now comparing apple to oranges, without relevance.
Have I jumped to conclusions? Of course. If that's you're issue, I concede.
If you had read any of my posts objectively, you wouldn't need to ask the question and answer it yourself.
As should you
Concede what, exactly? My assertions that you jumped to conclusions with no evidence? Done.
I would appreciate it if the personal attacks and innuendo were left out of this conversation.
Please cite the personal attacks and the innuendo I made.
You said "this is likely a small window into the way this parent treats her child." The problem with a small window it's limited view. She has raised your ire solely by her action, regardless of motive, and you've made statements that might even qualify as accusations regarding the future of this child. You categorize what you have not observed as "sad".
I find it sad that you don't have sufficient information to make outlandish conclusions, you make them anyway, you admit that you jumped to them, and don't see the obvious problems in doing so. So I ask you how you were raised.
Given your wordage, I think there's a far bigger window into your thought processes then the one you opened to her parenting skills.
- - -
And you are judging a situation based on a few seconds of grainy video.
You have no idea what happened. Could be Johnny Knoxville wannabe doing a "Jackass" routine. Could be a total hoax. Could be a child-abusing murderer.
You have no idea. But what you think happened has you outraged. Hope I never see you on a jury.
Ok, I could have been more succinct.