i honestly don't even know what you'd charge her with. sets a bad precedent

Wouldn't "endangerment" fit?

by most accounts she was busy with other children, the child went off and did it on his own. there's really nothing she could've done to prevent it outside of strapping him to her person.

sometimes stuff happens.

we slaughter millions of animals a day, who cares about a gorilla

retweeting

Houshphandzadeh wrote:we slaughter millions of animals a day, who cares about a gorilla

grilling up some chicken tonight

pacino wrote:by most accounts she was busy with other children, the child went off and did it on his own. there's really nothing she could've done to prevent it outside of strapping him to her person.

sometimes stuff happens.

again, this is really simplifying the situation. sometimes people leave their kids in hot cars bc they're distracted. should they not be charged

stuff happens!

The Dude wrote:

pacino wrote:by most accounts she was busy with other children, the child went off and did it on his own. there's really nothing she could've done to prevent it outside of strapping him to her person.

sometimes stuff happens.

again, this is really simplifying the situation. sometimes people leave their kids in hot cars bc they're distracted. should they not be charged

this is way different. it's not like she let the child go for hours in the zoo alone.

CalvinBall wrote:stuff happens!

do you eat meat?

tf does eating meat have to do with it. You can think the woman is wrong and still think the zoo performed the right action. You don't have to let a child alone in a hot car for hours, nor was this kid wondering for hours. bad points.

I'm not sure where i fall on if the parents should be charged with something, but "stuff happens" is very weak. Just letting your kid out of site at a mall is dangerous, now you're allowing to happen where dangerous animals are accessible.

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:stuff happens!

do you eat meat?

in that case, they should have shot all the animals in the place.

The Dude wrote:tf does eating meat have to do with it. You can think the woman is wrong and still think the zoo performed the right action. You don't have to let a child alone in a hot car for hours, nor was this kid wondering for hours. bad points.

I'm not sure where i fall on if the parents should be charged with something, but "stuff happens" is very weak. Just letting your kid out of site at a mall is dangerous, now you're allowing to happen where dangerous animals are accessible.

i think she was 'wrong' in the sense that thousands of parents are wrong on a daily basis. i don't think it's a fucking crime to have a lapse as a parent.

if you eat meat getting up on your (not necessarily you) high horse about this incident is pretty absurd.

pacino wrote:

The Dude wrote:tf does eating meat have to do with it. You can think the woman is wrong and still think the zoo performed the right action. You don't have to let a child alone in a hot car for hours, nor was this kid wondering for hours. bad points.

I'm not sure where i fall on if the parents should be charged with something, but "stuff happens" is very weak. Just letting your kid out of site at a mall is dangerous, now you're allowing to happen where dangerous animals are accessible.

i think she was 'wrong' in the sense that thousands of parents are wrong on a daily basis. i don't think it's a fucking crime.

if you eat meat getting up on your (not necessarily you) high horse about this incident is pretty absurd.

THousands of parents don't allow their kids into a cage with a dangerous animal on a daily basis. if a parent allows a kid to get access to their gun bc they were distracted, how would you feel?

Again, not seeing your point about eating meat. Can't you feel it the zoo was still right but still think it's an unnecessary loss? And who was on their high horse?

The Dude wrote:

pacino wrote:

The Dude wrote:tf does eating meat have to do with it. You can think the woman is wrong and still think the zoo performed the right action. You don't have to let a child alone in a hot car for hours, nor was this kid wondering for hours. bad points.

I'm not sure where i fall on if the parents should be charged with something, but "stuff happens" is very weak. Just letting your kid out of site at a mall is dangerous, now you're allowing to happen where dangerous animals are accessible.

i think she was 'wrong' in the sense that thousands of parents are wrong on a daily basis. i don't think it's a #$!&@ crime.

if you eat meat getting up on your (not necessarily you) high horse about this incident is pretty absurd.

THousands of parents don't allow their kids into a cage with a dangerous animal on a daily basis. if a parent allows a kid to get access to their gun bc they were distracted, how would you feel?

Again, not seeing your point about eating meat. Can't you feel it the zoo was still right but still think it's an unnecessary loss? And who was on their high horse?

go anywhere. very high horses are all over.

thousands of parents let their kids go out of sight, play with something, swallow something, run into something, a day.

there are more than 100,000 chickens in the world though, ya know?

pacino wrote:

The Dude wrote:

pacino wrote:

The Dude wrote:tf does eating meat have to do with it. You can think the woman is wrong and still think the zoo performed the right action. You don't have to let a child alone in a hot car for hours, nor was this kid wondering for hours. bad points.

I'm not sure where i fall on if the parents should be charged with something, but "stuff happens" is very weak. Just letting your kid out of site at a mall is dangerous, now you're allowing to happen where dangerous animals are accessible.

i think she was 'wrong' in the sense that thousands of parents are wrong on a daily basis. i don't think it's a #$!&@ crime.

if you eat meat getting up on your (not necessarily you) high horse about this incident is pretty absurd.

THousands of parents don't allow their kids into a cage with a dangerous animal on a daily basis. if a parent allows a kid to get access to their gun bc they were distracted, how would you feel?

Again, not seeing your point about eating meat. Can't you feel it the zoo was still right but still think it's an unnecessary loss? And who was on their high horse?

go anywhere. very high horses are all over.

thousands of parents let their kids go out of sight, play with something, swallow something, run into something, a day.

That doesn't answer my question

pacino has a hard time seeing anything not in black and white

shut up cballs. all you do is pick from the sides.


i dont see how the gun thing is comparable at all.

pacino wrote:shut up cballs.


i dont see how the gun thing is comparable at all.

but you see how bumping into the counter is the same thing?