Fault? Just an Accident?

[Crazy8]

a 40 lb. toddler should not be able to bring down a big statue in an open outdoor area. Yes parents need to attend to their children, but I probably would have let my child go up and "hug" that giant dolphin for a picture too - you would expect something like that to be secured to the ground. Now if there were ropes around it and it said do not touch, etc. that would be different but it sounds like this was out there for the public's enjoyment and it was not safe. If a small toddler could bring it down like that imagine what a 175 lb. adult could have done - imagine tripping or backing into it and it falling and killing someone else - would you be accused of murder???

[TwinKristi]

If the child was on the statue, then it's the parent's fault. The company should charge the parents for the damage done to the statue and they should be charged in the death of their child.

I honestly can't even type what I want to say to you because I would probably be banned from this forum. That is such an ignorant and narrow point of view.

[TwinKristi]

The article says that this business was warned specifically about this statue and chose to leave it unsecured there anyway.
Like Queen pointed out, this is San Francisco. Earthquakes are common. It should have been more secure than to allow a two year old to topple it.

Yes, the kid shouldn't have been allowed to climb on it, but we're talking about a two year old. Split second accidents happen. This poor family is dealing with enough pain without having to worry about being charged themselves.

Exactly. If anyone will be charged it will be the store, not the parents. I imagine there will be a big payout from that insurance company. Even it the parents shouldn't have let the child climb on it, it shouldn't have been there and should have been secured if it was outside. If a 2yr old could pull it down it could have been stolen, knocked down, fell on a passerby during an earthquake... And we don't really have earthquakes "all the time" but we are prone to them and homes and buildings have to have earthquake retrofitting done and measures taken to prevent injury in an earthquake. Why does my home daycare have to have earthquake fall protection but a business with thousands of visitors a day doesn't?

[Oss_cc]

Exactly. If anyone will be charged it will be the store, not the parents. I imagine there will be a big payout from that insurance company. Even it the parents shouldn't have let the child climb on it, it shouldn't have been there and should have been secured if it was outside. If a 2yr old could pull it down it could have been stolen, knocked down, fell on a passerby during an earthquake... And we don't really have earthquakes "all the time" but we are prone to them and homes and buildings have to have earthquake retrofitting done and measures taken to prevent injury in an earthquake. Why does my home daycare have to have earthquake fall protection but a business with thousands of visitors a day doesn't?

[craftymissbeth]

I honestly can't even type what I want to say to you because I would probably be banned from this forum. That is such an ignorant and narrow point of view.

You obviously disagree with how Wednesday sees this issue, but that doesn't mean she's not allowed to express her opinion here. I've seen many things said on here that make me go but that doesn't mean THEIR point of view is ignorant and narrow... it does mean that if I allow myself to get all worked up about something I don't agree with and refuse to accept that others have different opinions then I'M the one with the ignorant and narrow point of view.


With that said, I can see what Wednesday's trying to say. The statue should have been secured, but the child never should have been climbing on it, either.

[playground1]

And we don't really have earthquakes "all the time" but we are prone to them and homes and buildings have to have earthquake retrofitting done and measures taken to prevent injury in an earthquake. Why does my home daycare have to have earthquake fall protection but a business with thousands of visitors a day doesn't?

No, you really do. It's just that a lot of them aren't big enough for you to detect. Who knows how big they need to be to topple a statue?

http://earthquaketrack.com/v/sf/recent

[playground1]

I've seen many things said on here that make me go but that doesn't mean THEIR point of view is ignorant and narrow...

It doesn't mean that it's not.

[Play Care]

You obviously disagree with how Wednesday sees this issue, but that doesn't mean she's not allowed to express her opinion here. I've seen many things said on here that make me go but that doesn't mean THEIR point of view is ignorant and narrow... it does mean that if I allow myself to get all worked up about something I don't agree with and refuse to accept that others have different opinions then I'M the one with the ignorant and narrow point of view.


With that said, I can see what Wednesday's trying to say. The statue should have been secured, but the child never should have been climbing on it, either.

She was quoting permanent vacation (unless Wednesday and permanatvacation are the same person and I've missed that:confused: )

[craftymissbeth]

It doesn't mean that it's not.

Perceiving someone else's point of view as being ignorant and narrow is rather ignorant and narrow in and of itself

She was quoting permanent vacation (unless Wednesday and permanatvacation are the same person and I've missed that:confused: )

oh good gravy :: oops!

[playground1]

Perceiving someone else's point of view as being ignorant and narrow is rather ignorant and narrow in and of itself

So when I hear someone be racist or sexist, I'm narrow minded for not respecting their opinion? See, I respect everyone's right to an opinion, but I absolutely do not have to respect stupid opinions and reserve the right to say so.

[TwinKristi]

You obviously disagree with how Wednesday sees this issue, but that doesn't mean she's not allowed to express her opinion here. I've seen many things said on here that make me go but that doesn't mean THEIR point of view is ignorant and narrow... it does mean that if I allow myself to get all worked up about something I don't agree with and refuse to accept that others have different opinions then I'M the one with the ignorant and narrow point of view.


With that said, I can see what Wednesday's trying to say. The statue should have been secured, but the child never should have been climbing on it, either.

Which is why I refrained from expressing MY real true hearted opinion. If I let that out that would be getting worked up and allowing someone else's opinion to effect me. It's the keyboard courage of so many who voice their "opinion" which has no validity when it's just blablabla... But would she actually say that to the parents given the chance? :: Highly unlikely.

I purposely wrote exactly what I did to AVOID comments like yours. I didn't say she can't share her opinion, I stated I disagree with it to the point that I can't even say on "here" how I feel. I didn't say she couldn't share her opinion or shouldn't. I simply disagree. That's part of life.

[craftymissbeth]

So when I hear someone be racist or sexist, I'm narrow minded for not respecting their opinion? See, I respect everyone's right to an opinion, but I absolutely do not have to respect stupid opinions and reserve the right to say so.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. Here's another comment of mine that you can pick apart:

You have every right to tell another person that you disagree with their point of view. But you can do so with kindness and respect. Yeah, even the ones who are racist and sexist... you can express your difference in opinion with respect. If you choose not to, that's on you.

[playground1]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. Here's another comment of mine that you can pick apart:

You have every right to tell another person that you disagree with their point of view. But you can do so with kindness and respect. Yeah, even the ones who are racist and sexist... you can express your difference in opinion with respect. If you choose not to, that's on you.

That is entirely different from what you said.

No, sorry, that's "lady, pearl clutching" talk. First, no one here was disrespectful but even if they were, we are in no way beholden to express respect for someone that's clearly just wrong/and or ignorant. Abusive and mean are entirely different things. No one here has even come close to crossing that line.

One of the things I hate the most in the world is people who change the argument from what is being discussed, to "your're hurting my feelings, so now you're wrong and your opinion is invalid". It's a logical fallacy known as "ad hominem".

[craftymissbeth]

That is entirely different from what you said.

No, sorry, that's "lady, pearl clutching" talk. First, no one here was disrespectful but even if they were, we are in no way beholden to express respect for someone that's clearly just wrong/and or ignorant. Abusive and mean are entirely different things. No one here has even come close to crossing that line.

One of the things I hate the most in the world is people who change the argument from what is being discussed, to "your're hurting my feelings, so now you're wrong and your opinion is invalid". It's a logical fallacy known as "ad hominem".

I'm sorry I went OT.

BUT I never said ANYONE'S opinion was wrong. In fact, the whole point of what I'm trying to say (it baffles me that you're not comprehending this) is that even when we don't agree with someone we don't have to go all "you're lucky I'm holding back because what I really want to say will get me banned" (not a direct quote) or "I don't agree therefore your opinion is ignorant and narrow minded" (again, not a direct quote) or "I get to say whatever I want just because I feel that another's opinion is stupid" (yet again, not directly quoted). What you're accusing me of doing in the bolded above is EXACTLY what I was trying to say in my previous posts!

Also, you are completely correct in stating that you are not required to be respectful. But I am of the opinion that there are far better ways of saying "That is such an ignorant and narrow point of view." (direct quote)

Anyway, I'm done. I've said what I wanted to say about the subject, heard your opinion, responded to said opinion, and now I'm done.

[playground1]

I'm sorry I went OT.

BUT I never said ANYONE'S opinion was wrong. In fact, the whole point of what I'm trying to say (it baffles me that you're not comprehending this) is that even when we don't agree with someone we don't have to go all "you're lucky I'm holding back because what I really want to say will get me banned" (not a direct quote) or "I don't agree therefore your opinion is ignorant and narrow minded" (again, not a direct quote) or "I get to say whatever I want just because I feel that another's opinion is stupid" (yet again, not directly quoted). What you're accusing me of doing in the bolded above is EXACTLY what I was trying to say in my previous posts!

Also, you are completely correct in stating that you are not required to be respectful. But I am of the opinion that there are far better ways of saying "That is such an ignorant and narrow point of view." (direct quote)

Anyway, I'm done. I've said what I wanted to say about the subject, heard your opinion, responded to said opinion, and now I'm done.

And what I'm trying to say is that you need to stop trying to censor what other people say. We're all grown-ups here and should all know how to deal with honest criticism.