From: exusag@exu.ericsson.se (Serena Gilbert,cs,x0364)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: attractive nuisance...wasRe: East Bay Regi
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:08:19 GMT
Reply-To: exusag@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 3735@porthos.cc.bellcore.com, whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.162517.19734@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
> >>At which point it is the PARENTS' responsibility to teach the kids
> >>to swim (and not to trespass, and to stay away from dangerous situations).
> >
> >You can not expect that at a certain point, a child is suddenly fully
> >responsible and omniscient and simply keep them caged up until that
> >time. Children are so attracted to water that it is probably nearly
> >impossible to keep them away from it no matter how much effort the
> >parents have put into training. That's why it's called an
> >attractive nuisance.
> 
> That is patently bull s..t.  For every trespassing idiot there are
> hundreds of children that seem to know right from wrong and respect 
> the property rights/boundaries of others.  The fact that there are some
> (too many as far as I'm concerned) kids who don't giva a hoot for
> whatever reason should not indemnify them against the ill that may
> befall them AND certainly should not be used as a means to
> enrich the parents of these brats when/if they are killed while
> amusing themselves in someonelse's attractive nuisance.
> 
> And in another post you said:
> >But, libertarian principles only apply among competent, consenting
> >adults.  Children are none of the above. They are not competent,
> >they can not consent by definition, and they are not adults.
> 
> My 7 year old sure knows right from wrong and I fail to see why
> other kids her age (worse yet, older) should not be expected to
> behave in a civilized fashion, respecting what is NOT their's.
> Given the attitude that  "children are not competent..." let's
> totally ignor any criminal action on their part (ie. theft, murder,
> etc.).
> 
> A perfect example of the "Let my kid do anything attitude" was 
> a recent experience at a car show I attended.  I had my antique
> TR-3 sports car on display and upon returning to it found a kid almost
> totally inside the car....while his parents stood and said nothing.  
> Only after I told the kid if he wanted to look inside he should ask
> did the parents make any effort to have him not touch the vehicle.
> Amazing, just amazing.  But I guess I must tolerate these little
> assholes because I own an "attractive nuisance."  After all, if
> I didn't own such a nice car I wouldn't have to be worried about it :-)
> 
> Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
> bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
> Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
> 201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com

That's great that your 7 year old knows the difference from right and wrong?
But what about younger kids?  Does a 2 year old know that's he's not supposed
to go in someone else yard? Well you would probably say a two year old shouldn't
be outside with out his parents.  I agree, but let's say that his mother is 
really sick and she falls alseep on the sofa.  The child being bored figures
out how to open the front door (it's amazing what children can do).  He goes
outside.  It a nice day.  So he starts to walk down the sidewalk.  He sees a
pretty butterfly and chases it trying to catch it.  This leads him in to a 
yard.  A gate is open and he sees a brightly colored ball.  He goes to get the
ball (as to a two year old "every" thing is his to play with).  The ball is in
a pool, but he doesn't know what a pool is or that it is dangerous.  He reaches
for the ball.  The ball moves further into the pool.  He falls in.

So is the two year old at fault because he didn't know right from wrong?  Is his
mother at fault because she was "really" sick and wasn't paying attention?  Is
the person who left the pool gate open?  

--Serena