:arrow: :whip: :shoethrow: :hurt:

Somehow I don't think he is getting the point Isaac. The only way he will get this is when he has to slam on the brakes driving home from that pool and his daughter ends up hurt. God forbid it never happens, but I think some people (and he must be one of them) only learn the hard way unfortunately.:mad:

He doesn't Belle. As he pointed out in the thread 17 children, he wiil just ahve more to replace the one he loses. What a heartless, JERK.:mad:

>you're breaking the law too, probably with full knowledge of your actions and willfull intent to boot...

I speed, too. I also order products over the Internet and don't report them to the state so I can pay sales/use tax on them. Sometimes if I am in a hurry I will park in a handicapped spot. I am a CRIMINAL!!!

>Statically speaking, the majority of car crashes happen near the home, not 50 miles away on vacation. In other words your more likely to get your child killed in the 5 blocks between your home and the pool than you would on I-20 headed to Dallas.

1. It's "you're"

2. That is not what that means. That means that more accidents happen w/i 5 miles of home. It says nothing about the relative danger of driving near home vs. driving far from home unless you also have statistics about the amount of total driving done in those same distances. If 50% of accidents occur w/i 10 miles of home but 75% of driving is done there, then it is actually safer.

If any of you call child services please record the call. I want to hear how that goes.

"This guy on the Internet said he let his kid ride in his mom's lap for 5 blocks!"

"The SWAT team has been dispatched. He will be brought to justice."

This is because most miles spent on the road are spent on local residential roads on routine trips and not vacations.. That is why they are called "routine". Duh....

I really think this thread has run awry. I don't think anyone is not suggesting taking the precautions to keep our kids safe. If someone does their job 499,000 out of 500,000 times, that is reasonable. If safety if truely the number one concern, then it is best never to leave your house. After all, most car accidents occur outdoors and not inside your home. ;) Even then, there are a few exceptions of people getting hit by a car while sitting in their living room.

Then again some people get hit by a olive sitting in their own home :eyeball:

I guess the worst thing would to be agoraphobic and get killed by a falling meteorite at home. :D

Yeah, and how many of those directly or even indirectly endanger the safety of your kid again?

Like I said, you line of reasoning is childish at best

50% is 50% stupid, it doesn't matter where "the majority" of your driving is done. Half of your total wrecks, regardless of it being 1 or 100, are going to occur within that 10 mile area.

I prefer the scenario where the police wait for you at the pool then cart your ass to jail.

DUH...

You mean like when Einstein is driving home 5 blocks from the pool with his kid sitting in someone's lap?
Well I guess some of us care a little more about safety when it comes to children than those who we'll simply deem as "careless". What you are describing is a phobia. No one is suggesting to never get in your car again...I'm not even saying buckle YOUR seat belt. I'm saying get off your ass and strap the kids in!

>I prefer the scenario where the police wait for you at the pool then cart your ass to jail.

That's about as likely.

>50% is 50% stupid, it doesn't matter where "the majority" of your driving is done. Half of your total wrecks, regardless of it being 1 or 100, are going to occur within that 10 mile area.

I guess you weren't content in convincing us of your inability to read and comprehend the law as it relates to shooting burglars, now you've moved on to convincing us of your inability to read and comprehend statistics.

Well, after a little research It seems you are right. $50.00 for first offense which I think is equally as offensive as you refusing to buckle up your child.

The law is open to interpretation, numbers are not, 50% is 50% even if you only get on an Interstate once in your life, stupid.

and of course, that doesn't excuse you INTENTIONALLY and HABITUALLY endangering the life of your child.....and that's why child services should be notified.

Why not report me for taking her to the pool? Surely that's more dangerous than driving 5 blocks w/o a car seat.

And that's my point, every single parent in the universe INTENTIONALLY and HABITUALLY endangers the life of their child. That isn't (and shouldn't be) against the law.

>The law is open to interpretation,

Not the one about shooting someone unlawfully in your home, that one is intentionally unambiguous.

Not restraining your child IS against the law, stupid. I even quoted the first fine for you.

RS 32:295
Apparently it is....you've got it wrong.

I know it is. I said INTENTIONALLY and HABITUALLY endangers the life of your child is neither illegal nor something to avoid, nor should it be because it's something every single parent does every minute of every day.

>Apparently it is....you've got it wrong.

Please tell me again how I got it wrong. There are few things as satisfying as someone else adamantly insisting they're right when they are completely and utterly wrong.

Do you toss her into the pool without a life jacket as you do in a car with no restraint?? Equally irresponsible!

I ALWAYS strap her into her in her carseat when I throw her into the pool.

Hey stupid, it's illegal. Your intention and frequency are why you're an unfit parent. They don't have anything to do with the law.

BTW, anytime you care to test that little theory, feel free to volunteer your contact information and I'll pass it along to the proper authorities. Maybe someone over there will care about your bull**** excuses, but I doubt it very seriously just like I doubt you're going to confess your crimes to someone with the authority to do something about it.

I just did, and it's well know that ignorance is bliss. Glad you found it so satisfying, but that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.

You're disgusting dude....

I simply cannot fathom someone other than a dope head being so careless about the safety of their own children.

If there was ever a reason to require a license before being allowed to bare/raise children, you are the ****ing poster boy.

Hahahaha, "so careless."

DRIVING 5 BLOCKS WITHOUT A CAR SEAT IS PRACTICALLY A DEATH SENTENCE!!!!

>Your intention and frequency are why you're an unfit parent

So frequently doing something that endangers the life of a child make you an unfit parent? So 100% of parents are unfit?

I'm still curious as to why I'm an unfit parent for taking a kid 5 blocks in a car, but not an unfit parent for taking them to the pool in the first place, something that is surely more dangerous.

>If there was ever a reason to require a license before being allowed to bare/raise children, you are the ****ing poster boy.

Because my children are healthy, safe, and well-taken-care-of?

>I just did,

You did not.

Wow, I found a worse parent than myself.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

Nope, playing with a defanged and devenomed snake is harmless fun. How's the child going to get hurt? Poor snake.... Peta would be all over this if it happened in America. :D

Yikes! :freaky: Are they trying to teach the kid that snakes are harmless?

For a child under the age of 6 and less than 60 pounds not in a car seat, the first and only car crash IS usually fatal....hence the law.
100% of parents do not intentionally and habitually endanger the life of their child.

You've gone from childish excuses to outright lies.
Because there's a difference between a phobia and an adamant refusal to obey the law coupled with pure unadulterated negligence on your part.
Your children ARE NOT SAFE. You intentionally place their lives in mortal danger at least once a week without any sign of remorse.
Then how come you're the ONLY dumbass saying this is an acceptable parenting practice out of ALL the adults on this forum?

>For a child under the age of 6 and less than 60 pounds not in a car seat, the first and only car crash IS usually fatal....hence the law.

Then why are there so few deaths per year as a result? NHTSA says that in 2005 there were 450 deaths of children under age 5 as a result of motor vehicle accidents, 151 from unrestrained children. In 2004 (don't have 2005 data available) there were 430 drowning deaths in that same age bracket, despite the fact that there had to be millions of more opportunities to die in a car wreck than to drown.

Also, most car crashes for any age group and any level of restraint are non-fatal, I don't know where you pulled that from.

So how, exactly, am I a bad parent for doing something relatively safe (driving with the kid unrestrained) but not for doing something relatively dangerous (taking her to the pool)?

>100% of parents do not intentionally and habitually endanger the life of their child.

Yes, they do. Anyone that does anything with their child endangers its life.

>Your children ARE NOT SAFE. You intentionally place their lives in mortal danger at least once a week without any sign of remorse.

My children are at an acceptable level of safety. I place their lives in mortal danger every minute of every day, just as does every parent on the planet does to their children.

I've never argued that car seats aren't safer than no car seats, I've only argued that they protect against such an unlikely event that failure to use them (especially for a short, slow drive home) doesn't constitute enough of a danger to warrant consideration.

WOW! I just found this forum and began to read this thread, and I am in complete shock!

I mean being stubborn about being right over something as foolish as endangering your child?? Come on now.

Sure taking your child to the pool poses a risk of injury or death, BUT I would hope that a good parent would ensure that if the child was of an age that their abilities to swim were not developed, that they would make floaties or a life vest and absolute MUST. I would hope that the parent would watch their child while in the pool CONTINUOUSLY!!!! I would also hope they have the knowledge of CPR and simple life saving procedures, or that they have made sure there is someone there that does know this. Otherwise this parent would be endagering their child without taking all precautions necessary to try their BEST from keeping their child from getting hurt.

In the case of driving without your child in the car seat, no matter what distance and/or speed, this is lacking on the parental part for taking ALL precautions necessary to ensure your child's safety.

I'm not saying that you should never take your kids anywhere, I'm saying as a good parent you are to provide every bit of precautionary measure
to ensure that you keep your child safe. That is good parenting.

Here are some other statistics for you just in case you still don't see the light:

(www.lawcore.com) For those in the age group of 1 to 30 years, the leading cause of death is due to being involved in a car accident. In more than half of all car accident fatalities, the deceased were found not to be wearing their seat belts at the time of the crash. Even with seat belts being mandatory, a vast majority of people choose to disregard this safety precaution and end up losing their lives because of it.

(www.cdc.gov) Child safety seats reduce the risk of death in passenger cars by 71% for infants, and by 54% for toddlers ages 1 to 4 years (NHTSA 2006b).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommends booster seats for children until they are at least 8 years of age or 4'9" tall (NHTSA 2006d).

For children 4 to 7 years, booster seats reduce injury risk by 59% compared to safety belts alone (Durbin et al. 2003).

I really hope that you take into consideration your child's life. No matter what you say in this forum, I bet the next time you take your child to the pool, you think long and hard before you choose not to put your child in the carseat. Hopefully you choose to do such a simple task & help protect your child.

Who would have thought that passing a car seat law would manifest itself in fewer car related deaths than a practice like swimming which has no law mandating a level of safety.....certainly not some politician who voted in favor of the law, or the constituents who voted that official into office, huh? dumbass.....

BTW, I didn't realize you considered negligent homicide, at any range, an acceptable loss. Now we can add monster to the already extensive list of adjectives used to describe what a piece of **** you are.
You intentionally and habitually break the law in front of your children endangering their lives without any sign of remorse.

You know, Joan Crawford thought she was a good parent too, but it take a lot more than putting a meal on the table everynight, scumbag.

...but 100% of parents don't intentionally and habitually break the law by willfully and with full knowledge of their actions CHOOSING to ignore safety regulations mandated by law.

You sound like Santabot now trying to justify his drug use. You're breaking the law, period.
That's YOUR acceptable standard of safety, not the one dictated by LAW, and part of the reason you are an unfit parent.

One has to wonder if he/she has ever seen a doctor , I mean the chances of her dying from a cold versus the price of a doctor visit and the cost of medication with a cheap ass piece of **** like your for a father.
Translation, I'm to ****ing lazy to strap my child in and to ****ing cheap to buy a new car seat should the old one get ruined because, again, I'm to ****ing lazy to put a towel in the seat.

BTW, I'm still waiting for that contact information to turn over to the authorities. Or have you finally decided that you are INDEED intentionally and habitually breaking the law regardless of whatever childish excuses you come up with?

>I didn't realize you considered negligent homicide, at any range, an acceptable loss.

I don't, which is why I've never committed it.

>Or have you finally decided that you are INDEED intentionally and habitually breaking the law...?

I never denied I was breaking the law. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've said several times that I knowingly violate the law. So what? Who cares if I'm breaking the law? I'm not going to get caught and even if I did it's a nothing fine. I break laws all the time: speeding, rolling stops at red lights, ordering stuff off the Internet and not notifying the state for the proper sales/use taxes, etc. So what? Since when is the law the arbiter of what is right? The state obviously doesn't think car seats make very much difference, either, since they gave not using one a penalty less than 1/5th of the penalty they give litterers.

>but 100% of parents don't intentionally and habitually break the law by willfully and with full knowledge of their actions CHOOSING to ignore safety regulations mandated by law.

As usual, correct but irrelevant, since I never said anything about anyone breaking the law. Ignoring the law doesn't make you a bad parent any more than following the law makes you a good parent. Driving 5 blocks w/o a car seat means my kid is very, very, very, very, very likely to arrive home safely instead of very, very, very. very. very, very likely to arrive home safely. If I never left the house at all there's a very, very, very. very. very, very, very likely chance that the kid will survive, so why am I not a bad parent for taking the kid outside at all?

>In the case of driving without your child in the car seat, no matter what distance and/or speed, this is lacking on the parental part for taking ALL precautions necessary to ensure your child's safety.

If I was taking ALL precautions necessary to ensure my child's safety I would have it locked in a concrete bunker 24 hours a day. Since I have decided that risking my child's life is worth it, I have to decide in what activities she is allowed to engage. Riding 5 blocks w/o a car seat is an incredibly safe act (as evidenced by the fact that so few children are injured in this manner despite so many participating) that I allow my child to engage in. Going on a parentally supervised trip to the pool is much, much more dangerous than riding 5 blocks w/o a car seat, but I let my child do that, too, because it's still incredibly safe.

I'm not sure what part of this you didn't read, but since you seem to be intensely focused on the part about you taking your daughter to the pool, I posted this in order to sort of help you re-evaluate what we were trying to say.

It seems to me that I might have to say it ANOTHER way:

Choosing to go 5 blocks without your child in a car seat is the same as throwing a 2 year old into a pool without a life jacket.
THE CHILD NEEDS THE EXTRA PROTECTION THAT A CAR SEAT OR LIFE JACKET GIVES!

How lazy of a person can you be?? I mean really. Have you not heard of a washing machine?? You do know the carseat covers come out?? What about towels???

Oh, but wait, no one else in this forum knows what they are talking about--I forgot...only you do.

For the rest of us that do intend to buckle in children, even if for 5 blocks in a residential community I think we can all agree that this is a lost cause, and the best thing we can do for this child is pray that nothing happens and that ignorant parents grow up.

I didn't say you were guilty of the crime, stupid. I said you considered loss due to negligent homicide acceptable and unlikely. Isn't that the EXACT excuse you gave for not strapping your child in....playing the odds with her life you piece of ****.

You mean besides the police who you continue to hide your actiosn from and EVERY SINGLE PERSON with the exception of you that's posted on this topic?

I find it equally disturbing that your wife is as careless. Do you beat her into submission or do you just smoke crack and neglect the child together?
1. Are we supposed to be surprised that a piece of **** callous enough to gamble with the life of his child is ALSO doesn't give a **** about obeying other laws?

2. The Law has the been the arbiter of what is right and wrong since the term "law" was invented.

Law:
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
Well if habitual criminal activity doesn't make you an unfit parent, how about testing your theory out by providing me with contact information for the authorities.

Typical **** talker.

Well I certainly hope I get to meet her as an adult and show her what a careless piece of **** father she has. I'm sure that will explain the disfigurment and multiple scars she'll have to endure as a direct result of your carlessness.

Congrats, Joepole
 

You have 5 pages of opposition to your stand, and you're not bending. I'm thinking you're enjoying this banter?!? Love that baby & buckle her up!:)

Well said Sportgirl!!!:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Joe, do you think you can find anybody besides your wife to agree with you?

Sort of makes me long for the good ole days when everyone thought the worst a person could do was be an atheist who supported the 1st Amendment.

Are you asking for another debate Brain?????????:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: jk

>playing the odds with her life

That is what every single parent does every single minute of every single day.

You can't seem to decide, am I an unfit parent for breaking the law or for endangering her life? What about when she starts school, will i be an unfit parent for letting her ride the school bus? That's legal, but it means she won't be wearing a seat belt, so I'm confused as to its parent-worthiness.

>I'm sure that will explain the disfigurment and multiple scars she'll have to endure as a direct result of your carlessness.

Hahahahaha. She'll be the modern elephant man! People will come from miles around to see the hulking monster of a woman whose parents dared to let her ride out of her car seat!

>The Law has the been the arbiter of what is right and wrong since the term "law" was invented.

No, it hasn't, it has been the arbiter of what is legal. I can host a cockfight at my house and feed my kid McDonald's three meals a day and invite all of my friends over to smoke in her room while she's sleeping without breaking the law, but it hardly makes me right, does it? Likewise, I can ignore laws that make absolutely no difference in her life and it doesn't make me wrong.

WONT SUMBODY THNK Of DA CHILDRENS!!!! DA BIFSTA DOES!!!

By this standard, what do you all think of my parents of letting us kids ride in the bed of a pickup truck back in the 60's? Not even inside of the vehicle? Back before Brain was born? Heck both my mom and dad started driving around age 12 and neither even had a drivers license! (where was no such tax/fee for driving yet). Back when men were men and women were women.. I have wondered if we should all become Amish because it would save 10X the lives lost in Iraq for socalled nothing.

So rhertz you were a pickup truck child. Did you ride in the back with the goat and the chickens :laugh: You hay seed you :D

What we did in the 60's is alot different than it is now. I rode in the back of a pickup lots of times. I don't fault your parents for that, but are you saying that in today's time your parents would do it still. You say you agree with Joe, but does that also mean you agree about Brokeback Mountain being shown to 12 year olds. Would your parents also show a movie about gay cowboys to children. You preach about the 60's, but did you have to worry about people going into the school to shoot anyone or everyone. No that was not a worry. When are ya going to understand times change, things change. I have one more idea, so listen. Are you telling me that you disciplined your children the same way you were disciplined. Be honest!