• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cocky
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Drunk
  • Embarrased
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Godly
  • Happy
  • Hateful
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345
    Results 81 to 88 of 88

    Thread: Police lay charges after toddler drowns in backyard pond

    1. #81
      monomer's Avatar
      monomer is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      May 2012
      Location
      Lower Peninsula, Western Mid-Michigan and then just a bit over to the right
      Posts
      779
      Quote Originally Posted by Shadow99 View Post
      ...THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ANY PARENT. Any parent that says they have never had four minutes of distraction when tending their toddler is either forgetful or a liar...
      So this is the excuse that pardons the guardian's lapse of attention? So how many minutes are they allowed to misplace their child before it becomes negligence and they begin to assume the blame? What about the gate being removed for construction? THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ANY POND OWNER. Apparently you don't get it... this idea of responsibility I mean. One minute or one hour, its still the parent/guardian's responsibility. You want to help direct traffic in front of your house, fine... you put the toddler into the house FIRST! or you find some other responsible person to monitor the child's activities or you pick-up the child and take him with you. If you choose to blow off that responsibility YOU should be held negligent regardless of whether you go off for 4 minutes or 40 minutes.... it has nothing to do with how long you ignored your responsibilies.

      You (and others) keep going back to the law as your defense for your moral conclusions... as if the law is always the correct moral judge. In Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning, reasoning based on authority was considered only at second level reasoning, stage 4... its the same level used by people who helped carry out the holocaust in WWII... their excuse was that the law/authorities directed them to put others to death therefore they felt they were not to be blamed for the genocide they had participated in. The highest form of moral reasoning (meaning the end of the series) is based upon universal ethical principles at a level 3, stage 6. According to Kohlberg's theory one cannot comprehend any stage of moral reasoning further than one stage just above their own stage of reasoning abilities... if Kohlberg is correct in this then I'm wasting my time here.

      What really saves human lives is responsible parenting and owning up to one's mistakes and vowing to do better instead of just blaming others and enacting laws that penialize others for one's own failures. So perhaps one could say irresponsible parenting is really the number one cause of death amoung children under the age of 5 and thus why so many small children die by drowning. I mean, how can a child die by drowning if a parent/guardian is watching?
      Last edited by monomer; 06-23-2012 at 01:44 PM.

      • Remove Ads
        Advertising from Google
        Promoting Koi and Pond
        keeping since 2007

         

    2. #82
      clm's Avatar
      clm is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      May 2008
      Location
      Mississauga, Ontario
      Posts
      4,379
      Quote Originally Posted by monomer View Post
      So this is the excuse that pardons the guardian's lapse of attention? So how many minutes are they allowed to misplace their child before it becomes negligence and they begin to assume the blame? What about the gate being removed for construction? THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ANY POND OWNER. Apparently you don't get it... this idea of responsibility I mean. One minute or one hour, its still the parent/guardian's responsibility. You want to help direct traffic in front of your house, fine... you put the toddler into the house FIRST! or you find some other responsible person to monitor the child's activities. If you choose to blow off that responsibility YOU should be held negligent regardless of whether you go off for 4 minutes or 40 minutes.... it has nothing to do with how long you ignored your responsibilies.

      You (and others) keep going back to the law as your defense for your moral conclusions... as if the law is always the correct moral judge. In Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning, reasoning based on authority was considered only at second level reasoning, stage 4... its the same level used by people who helped carry out the holocaust in WWII... their excuse was that the law/authorities directed them to put others to death therefore they felt they were not to be blamed for the genocide they had participated in. The highest form of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles at a level 3, stage 6. According to Kohlberg's theory one cannot comprehend any stage of moral reasoning further than one stage just above their own stage of reasoning abilities... if Kohlberg is correct in this then I'm wasting my time here.

      What really saves human lives is responsible parenting and owning up to one's mistakes and vowing to do better instead of just blaming others and enacting laws that penialize others for one's own failures. So perhaps one could say irresponsible parenting is really the number one cause of death amoung children under the age of 5 and thus why so many small children die by drowning. I mean, how can a child die by drowning if a parent/guardian is watching?

      Click for Toronto Pearson, Ontario Forecast

    3. #83
      MikeS's Avatar
      MikeS is offline Supporting Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      May 2009
      Location
      Jonesborough Tennessee, United States
      Posts
      2,664
      Quote Originally Posted by jtp79 View Post
      Koiphen needs a "LIKE" button similar to facebook!!!!!

      That's a possibility I believe
      Mike & Sharon Shaw
      Jonesborough TN

      https://www.koiphen.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=437164

    4. #84
      Shadow99's Avatar
      Shadow99 is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2010
      Location
      North of Where I wish I was
      Posts
      1,033
      Quote Originally Posted by monomer View Post
      So this is the excuse that pardons the guardian's lapse of attention? So how many minutes are they allowed to misplace their child before it becomes negligence and they begin to assume the blame? What about the gate being removed for construction? THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ANY POND OWNER. Apparently you don't get it... this idea of responsibility I mean. One minute or one hour, its still the parent/guardian's responsibility. You want to help direct traffic in front of your house, fine... you put the toddler into the house FIRST! or you find some other responsible person to monitor the child's activities. If you choose to blow off that responsibility YOU should be held negligent regardless of whether you go off for 4 minutes or 40 minutes.... it has nothing to do with how long you ignored your responsibilies.

      You (and others) keep going back to the law as your defense for your moral conclusions... as if the law is always the correct moral judge. In Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning, reasoning based on authority was considered only at second level reasoning, stage 4... its the same level used by people who helped carry out the holocaust in WWII... their excuse was that the law/authorities directed them to put others to death therefore they felt they were not to be blamed for the genocide they had participated in. The highest form of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles at a level 3, stage 6. According to Kohlberg's theory one cannot comprehend any stage of moral reasoning further than one stage just above their own stage of reasoning abilities... if Kohlberg is correct in this then I'm wasting my time here.

      What really saves human lives is responsible parenting and owning up to one's mistakes and vowing to do better instead of just blaming others and enacting laws that penialize others for one's own failures. So perhaps one could say irresponsible parenting is really the number one cause of death amoung children under the age of 5 and thus why so many small children die by drowning. I mean, how can a child die by drowning if a parent/guardian is watching?
      Oh good grief do you have children? Have you ever had children? Yes, you are numero uno at penning up your dogs, but how did you manage to watch your toddlers 24/7/365 eyes on all the time, without a single moment of distraction ever? Know why there will never be a law requiring such 24/7/365 surveillance of children. It is obvious. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. You want to completely ignore this fact and instead keep making the trite response that if the parent had their eyes on the child it wouldn't have happened. Well duh. Oh and send a two year old unattended into the house?! Pfft.

      Fence laws are made to help SAVE A LIFE, to make things safer for the world today's children live in, where people live close together and maintain ornamental death traps on their properties. Ponds and pools are attractive beacons to children and with their big depths and no ledges offer no chance of survival for non-swimmers. Unless of course, safety measures are in place.

      The strawman arguments you are tossing up in this thread are ridiculous and not worthy of response. The Holocaust? Kohlberg? Seriously?

      I'm done with this thread and its politics.

      Hopefully I have given a few reasonable people that may be considering blowing off fencing based on the thumbs ups they have been seeing, something to think about. If you maintain a water feature, you need to know it will attract children-like a dish of candy. Our Laws require you to recognize this fact and take precautions to prevent tragedy. If you do not and the all too common occurrence happens to you, you may go to jail and likely will face very serious civil action where you could lose everything. The lawyers will take it all, even if the case is a draw.

      Regardless of your political views, ask yourself if it is worth it. Trust me, the image of a baby floating face down in your beautiful water feature will never be scrubbed from your brain no matter how hard you want to blame the parents.

      Last edited by Shadow99; 06-23-2012 at 01:16 PM.

    5. #85
      Shadow99's Avatar
      Shadow99 is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2010
      Location
      North of Where I wish I was
      Posts
      1,033
      Quote Originally Posted by Russell Peters View Post
      This is now going overboard I think.
      Someone wants to speculate about my moral conclusions and compare them to Holocaust enablers? They are going to get a response.

    6. #86
      monomer's Avatar
      monomer is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      May 2012
      Location
      Lower Peninsula, Western Mid-Michigan and then just a bit over to the right
      Posts
      779
      Quote Originally Posted by Shadow99 View Post
      Someone wants to speculate about my moral conclusions and compare them to Holocaust enablers? They are going to get a response.
      Then you missed the whole point of the argument presented in the first place. Kohlberg's "THEORIES" on moral reasoning development was introduced solely as a segway into showing how the law is not always a sound basis by which to judge the morality (rightness) of a situation... whether his THEORIES hold any water or not is besides the point... the holocaust example is a very famous one that's often used to show that many people used the law/authority in their moral reasoning to absolve themselves from blame... whether valid or not. If you cannot see that laws are not necessarily valid excuses to use as a basis to determine what is right or wrong then we have no common grounds to continue any discussion. According to Kohlberg, you are at stage 4 reasoning and I am at stage 6... there is nothing that says one stage is better than the other, he is simply saying we are too far apart and will therefore never agree. The singluar point I keep trying to establish is that I believe it is wrong to charge the pond owner with criminal negligence from the standpoint of universal ethical principles of reasoning that I keep putting forth and this is especially so in light of the absolving any negligence on the part of the parent/guardian which is implicit in one's approval of criminal charges being leveled upon the pond owner and nothing for the parent (who apparently then must be innocent in the eyes of the law I guess, huh). I see the grave injustice in this, others don't and we shall leave it at that. I've been participating on forums since forever and have long since learned the value of walking away from a perpetual argument as I will now prove. Sigh....
      Last edited by monomer; 06-23-2012 at 02:26 PM.

    7. #87
      KoiAteMyHeron's Avatar
      KoiAteMyHeron is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      May 2012
      Location
      USA
      Posts
      750
      Quote Originally Posted by Russell Peters View Post
      This has just become a huge arguement that doesn't belong in main.
      I 2nd that!

    8. #88
      lukef's Avatar
      lukef is offline king of the lilliputians
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Feb 2006
      Location
      florida
      Posts
      4,226
      seems like society just gets its knickers in a knot and wants to hurt someone when baby dies. If the parents let their kid wander off and drown or get run over by a car then they are going to get punished enough by themselves. Society needs to let it go.
      And there is no reason to believe a 2 year old is going to be let loose to roam the neighborhood and is going to fall in your pond and drown.
      Kids drown. Society doesn't need to come down on people just because they feel the need to kick someone. Kids die. Leave the adults alone
      "Those aren't poodles. They're Dobermans with afros."

      • Remove Ads
        Advertising from Google
        Promoting Koi and Pond
        keeping since 2007

         

    Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •