From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:52:07 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <6998@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.053355.26183@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
> ...
>|> You don't have to have uncontrolled children to view an unsecured
>|> attractive nuisance as a dangerous threat. Fencing children in
>|> is unacceptable.
>
>That is the point I was making earlier, it is your view and only a view
>not the end all truth.  Fencing children is unacceptable ... WHY!  It's
>done all the time.   ...

  It isn't done "all the time", it is only done on occasion.  There
is a dangerous time of 10 - 15 years in a child's life (perhaps
age 2 to about age 15) in which one worries particularly about an
attractive nuisance.  I don't consider it acceptable to keep children
fenced in all that time.

>I view your children as a nuisance!  They aren't all that attractive
>either, but I'm not talking about looks.  They run around carelessly,
>break, trash, and trespass with no concern for what they're told. ...

  This shows a seriously high level of hostility towards children.
A 5 year old who wanders across a property line - is that what this
hostility is all about?

> ...  If their children are so
>damned important then why don't they care before something happens?

  Right - if parents aren't perfect, then they *deserve* to have
their children killed!
>
>Face it Phil, I'm not a public service to protect everyone else's child.

  You appear to go further than that, and maintain that you may
set up situations which would harm everyone else's child.  But society
(by such wise policies as the attractive nuisance doctrine) holds
you to a higher standard of behavior than you would like.

>I don't want them around, I told them to stay out, I told their parents
>that they weren't welcome, and that is as far as it goes.  Beyond that
>it is their parents who are their legal responsibility.  I didn't build
>a pool on public property, I didn't plant a tree in public property,
>and I don't want my yard to become their playground.  

  Fine, and there are legitimate ways for you to enforce this.  Hurting
or killing the trespassing children just isn't allowable.
> ...
>As usual my view is irrelevant because it involves his children.
>His children are more important than anything else in the world. ...
>Now he wants warm fuzzies at no cost just because he has children, ...

  No, it is society's view that it is important to protect children
and to avoid hurting/killing them.

>If you really care you will keep them in places they belong.  The best
>way to do this is teaching them right/wrong, to do what they are told,
>and to respect another property.  If you don't you aren't being a
>reasonable and responsible parent.  It may not be the child's fault,
>but it sure isn't mine.  If you screw off raising your child the child
>will pay the price.  Either it will get hurt, hurt someone else, or

  Why do I get this picture of you enjoying your role as the Enforcer -
anytime you find a small child who was wandered off, gotten lost,
strayed over a property line when following a dog/cat/bird or just
looking at a flower - that it is time for the Enforcer to hurt/kill
this child?

>get caught doing something "fun" and spend a little time making license
>plates.  You failed, not me and whether you like it or not they will
>pay too.  So don't let them down.

  Right!  If parents can't be perfect for every minute of the 10-15
years, then it's time for the Enforcer!
> ...
>If you can afford having children then you can afford to protect
>them.  ...

  And to do it perfectly, without ever a lapse or error!

>THEY ARE ANIMALS!

  Well, at least this is consistent.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal