Skip to comments.
Mother defends breastfeeding baby while driving (followup on idiot)
WKYC-TV/DT Cleveland ^
| 6.17.03
| Vic Gideon
Posted on 06/19/2003 7:36:03 PM PDT by mhking
Edited on 06/23/2003 2:48:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 641-655 next last
To: RMDupree
Tell me something. How is "instinct" going to keep your baby from being smashed between your body and the steering wheel when someone cuts you off? Im not defending the fact that this woman, Im defending her right to do dumb things with no intention of malice. As far as protecting the baby from the steering wheel should someone cut her off, How about safe distance allowing you to use the STEERING wheel to avoid collision? In the scenario that You called ridiculous the mother could not have the advantage of allowing safe distance as there is only so much distance between mama and the ground. And whats the difference between being smashed between mama and the Wheel or mama and the ground?
281
posted on
06/20/2003 2:00:18 PM PDT
by
mylife
To: Howlin
Thanks -- I'm still trying to get through all of this.
To: Howlin
I wonder how he feels about fringe on the flag?
283
posted on
06/20/2003 2:02:26 PM PDT
by
Catspaw
To: Howlin
We are now fully informed? None make mistakes? There is simply no tolerance for variance in our culture?
Should we ever venture out of the house for fear of this goblin or that hobgblin? Every breath is a risk. Could be an SARS spore in it. Best to stop breathing.
284
posted on
06/20/2003 2:03:00 PM PDT
by
bvw
To: bvw
One more time: was this woman's action the action a reasonably prudent individual would engage in?
YES or NO.
The only people who find that question difficult to answer are those who aren't reasonably prudent. A case can be made that those individuals shouldn't be allowed to operate a multi-ton vehicle at high speeds.
285
posted on
06/20/2003 2:03:26 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
(I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
To: RMDupree
I cannot believe people are trying to justify this woman's blatant stupidity! Im not trying to defend her stupidity, Im trying to point out that We cant outlaw stupidity....that would be the ultimate stupidity
286
posted on
06/20/2003 2:03:34 PM PDT
by
mylife
To: RMDupree
A goblin! I've seen children strewn in so meny pieces ten blankets wouln't cover them. But so what? A rotten and terrible image -- Let us ban everything!
287
posted on
06/20/2003 2:05:37 PM PDT
by
bvw
To: mylife
Im defending her right to do dumb things with no intention of malice.And that is one of the primary differences between Constamatooshinalists and the sane - we don't like to see the lives of others endangered through the sort of stupidity that these people seem to embrace and revel in.
To: mylife
Im not defending the fact that this woman, Im defending her right to do dumb things with no intention of malice.Hey, no problem--as long as said dumb things don't raise the prospect of harm to others.
289
posted on
06/20/2003 2:08:14 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
(I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
To: mhking
290
posted on
06/20/2003 2:09:41 PM PDT
by
Stultis
To: RgnadKzin
Do you have a voter registration card?
To: RgnadKzin
"As for paying taxes for which I am not liable, you should remember that Christ did not say: Render unto Caesar that which is NOT Caesar's." Romans 13:1-2, 5-7: "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves...Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this, you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor" (NASB).
How do you deal with this passage, I humbly ask?
To: scott7278
Good question. I am particularly interested in his answer to this part: ...whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God.
To: scott7278
Simple. He just pretends that the tax code doesn't say what it actually does say, and continues on his merry way.
294
posted on
06/20/2003 2:15:37 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
(I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
To: Poohbah
Im not defending the fact that this woman, Im defending her right to do dumb things with no intention of malice. ARGGGggggg I need a proof reader!
295
posted on
06/20/2003 2:15:47 PM PDT
by
mylife
To: mylife
I understood your point clearly enough.
My point is that one's right to do dumb things ends when one risks harming others. IMNHO, stupidity becomes malicious at that point.
296
posted on
06/20/2003 2:17:35 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
(I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
To: Poohbah
She is an adult, a free adult capable of making the necessary judgement of an adult. I will not second guess her adult decision. Her car was well controlled while she drove. No injuries, no accidents happened. In my view there is thus no cause for action against her. And there is no cause for presumption about this or that behaviour being dangerous -- for the outcome was her car was driven normally withour any harms.
297
posted on
06/20/2003 2:17:37 PM PDT
by
bvw
To: scott7278
Let me guess. That admonition doesn't apply to Michigan residents?
To: Poohbah
I understood your point clearly enough. My point is that one's right to do dumb things ends when one risks harming others. IMNHO, stupidity becomes malicious at that point. I understand your point but think that there is a world of difference between risk and malice.
299
posted on
06/20/2003 2:20:58 PM PDT
by
mylife
To: bvw
She is an adult, a free adult capable of making the necessary judgement of an adult. I will not second guess her adult decision.I cheerfully will.
Her car was well controlled while she drove. No injuries, no accidents happened.
You are conflating "she got extremely lucky" and "her car was well controlled."
Here's the bottom line: if someone's luck runs out...would you say "I'm not going to second-guess her adult decision," or are you going to say "hammer her," or are you going to run for cover and hope nobody notices the bone-headedness you've been spouting?
300
posted on
06/20/2003 2:21:15 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
(I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 641-655 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson