5 ms·

We don't actually have any information about whether that was folly or not. Let's say 2 children avoid a trip to the hospital over the next 5 years, but four th

We don't actually have any information about whether that was folly or not. Let's say 2 children avoid a trip to the hospital over the next 5 years, but four thieves escape. That would be a perfectly acceptable compromise to me.

catawbasam 10y ago
I disagree. At this point the neighbors have effectively privatized a public facility. They should have to pay 100%. (I'm a U.S. suburban Dad with 2 young kids who do stupid things on their bikes.)
skiningham 10y ago
Suppose the ambulance has the same problem the police had.
CamperBob2 10y ago
(Shrug) When I was a child, I was taught not to play in the street. Meanwhile, access for emergency vehicles can be pretty important for the rest of us.
- knodi123 10y ago
  Yes, all children should be taught not to play in the street. But we should not have a death penalty for children whose parents don't do that correctly...
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    You're conflating two notions. One of a "penalty" which is something that is inflicted, and one of "consequences" which just happen. Children who aren't taught money management and nutrition will end up having shorter and worse lives on the average. Is that a consequence or a penalty?
    - knodi123 10y ago
      Clearly the children aren't being intentionally murdered in order to punish their parents. That's so far from reality that there's no sense pointing out that I'm wrong. I would have written "death consequence", but that doesn't roll as trippingly off of the tongue. Try not to read the subtext instead of focusing on a legal interpretation. The whole point of my comment was that it's the children who suffer when a parent fails to teach them basic safety, therefore saying "Well when I was a kid, they just taught us not to do this" is kind of disingenuous. That kind of statement seems to be pushing personal responsibility as a superior solution, even though very young children are not responsible for this kind of mistake.
      - CamperBob2 10y ago
        Then, there are those of us who don't want to live (or drive) in a world that's been childproofed to the extent you probably have in mind.
        knodi123 10y ago
        I was responding to a guy who said "(Shrug) When I was a child, I was taught not to play in the street". I was talking about his attitude of placing responsibility on children, which you would know if you had actually read my comment. Seriously, read it again and show me where I said anything about childproofing the world. Your emotional kneejerk comment that has nothing to do with what I wrote would surely be very popular on reddit, but this isn't that place, so I'll thank you to kindly stop speculating about what is in my mind and focus on what I actually typed.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        There you go again. "Emotional kneejerk comment". "Popular on reddit". (Focusing on what you actually typed which are attacks devoid of facts.) We're not placing responsibility on the children, we're placing responsibility on the parents. If your parents are not good at being parents, then you'll have a higher probability of bad events happening to you. Nothing we can do will change that, unless we want to put everybody in a state orphanage so that each child can have equal opportunities.
  - SolarNet 10y ago
    Except in this case it's the parents arguing for these traffic abatements, how about instead of faffing around with taxpayer money they be better parents.
    - knodi123 10y ago
      Perhaps the parents are arguing for traffic abatements in order to protect children other than their own? I would be brokenhearted if the child down the street was killed by a fast car right in front of his porch, even if it was his own parents' fault for not teaching him properly. Or perhaps these parents understand that even the best parent can make mistakes. Kids are crazy. My 3.5 year old was out of sight for about a minute while her mom went to the bathroom, and she managed to move a potty chair over to the front door, undo the deadbolt (which she had never even attempted to do before), opened the front door, and went walking down the street. Shit happens. Kids are dumb. It's nice to have more than one layer of protection.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  Are cul-de-sacs not a thing in the states?
  - hnal943 10y ago
    They are, but they aren't universal. Most people live on a through street.
FireBeyond 10y ago
Meanwhile maybe two children die in drowning incidents because fire engines and ambulances aren't able to effectively navigate your makeshift 'traffic abatement' program. How's your compromise now?
- treebeard901 10y ago
  Suppose the two children were the thieves and the traffic abatement program let them get away from the police.
  - rconti 10y ago
    Suppose a spherical child in a vacuum
    - ohazi 10y ago
      Poor kid...
  - tgb 10y ago
    Moreover, the city planners get to pick one of three doors only one of which has a traffic abatement program. After choosing a door, one of the other doors is revealed to have a goat behind it. Should they switch doors? http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4132 http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4132
sgnelson 10y ago
Suppose that the thieves escaped, and then later that night they killed your Uncle Ben. At that point you realize that with great power comes great responsibility. You go home, design a suit with a spider emblem on it, and then use your newly created powers, brought on by a radioactive spider bite for societal good, not personal gain.

catawbasam 10y ago

I disagree. At this point the neighbors have effectively privatized a public facility. They should have to pay 100%. (I'm a U.S. suburban Dad with 2 young kids who do stupid things on their bikes.)

skiningham 10y ago

Suppose the ambulance has the same problem the police had.

CamperBob2 10y ago

(Shrug) When I was a child, I was taught not to play in the street. Meanwhile, access for emergency vehicles can be pretty important for the rest of us.

knodi123 10y ago
Yes, all children should be taught not to play in the street. But we should not have a death penalty for children whose parents don't do that correctly...
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  You're conflating two notions. One of a "penalty" which is something that is inflicted, and one of "consequences" which just happen. Children who aren't taught money management and nutrition will end up having shorter and worse lives on the average. Is that a consequence or a penalty?
  - knodi123 10y ago
    Clearly the children aren't being intentionally murdered in order to punish their parents. That's so far from reality that there's no sense pointing out that I'm wrong. I would have written "death consequence", but that doesn't roll as trippingly off of the tongue. Try not to read the subtext instead of focusing on a legal interpretation. The whole point of my comment was that it's the children who suffer when a parent fails to teach them basic safety, therefore saying "Well when I was a kid, they just taught us not to do this" is kind of disingenuous. That kind of statement seems to be pushing personal responsibility as a superior solution, even though very young children are not responsible for this kind of mistake.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      Then, there are those of us who don't want to live (or drive) in a world that's been childproofed to the extent you probably have in mind.
      - knodi123 10y ago
        I was responding to a guy who said "(Shrug) When I was a child, I was taught not to play in the street". I was talking about his attitude of placing responsibility on children, which you would know if you had actually read my comment. Seriously, read it again and show me where I said anything about childproofing the world. Your emotional kneejerk comment that has nothing to do with what I wrote would surely be very popular on reddit, but this isn't that place, so I'll thank you to kindly stop speculating about what is in my mind and focus on what I actually typed.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        There you go again. "Emotional kneejerk comment". "Popular on reddit". (Focusing on what you actually typed which are attacks devoid of facts.) We're not placing responsibility on the children, we're placing responsibility on the parents. If your parents are not good at being parents, then you'll have a higher probability of bad events happening to you. Nothing we can do will change that, unless we want to put everybody in a state orphanage so that each child can have equal opportunities.
- SolarNet 10y ago
  Except in this case it's the parents arguing for these traffic abatements, how about instead of faffing around with taxpayer money they be better parents.
  - knodi123 10y ago
    Perhaps the parents are arguing for traffic abatements in order to protect children other than their own? I would be brokenhearted if the child down the street was killed by a fast car right in front of his porch, even if it was his own parents' fault for not teaching him properly. Or perhaps these parents understand that even the best parent can make mistakes. Kids are crazy. My 3.5 year old was out of sight for about a minute while her mom went to the bathroom, and she managed to move a potty chair over to the front door, undo the deadbolt (which she had never even attempted to do before), opened the front door, and went walking down the street. Shit happens. Kids are dumb. It's nice to have more than one layer of protection.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
Are cul-de-sacs not a thing in the states?
- hnal943 10y ago
  They are, but they aren't universal. Most people live on a through street.

FireBeyond 10y ago

Meanwhile maybe two children die in drowning incidents because fire engines and ambulances aren't able to effectively navigate your makeshift 'traffic abatement' program. How's your compromise now?

treebeard901 10y ago
Suppose the two children were the thieves and the traffic abatement program let them get away from the police.
- rconti 10y ago
  Suppose a spherical child in a vacuum
  - ohazi 10y ago
    Poor kid...
- tgb 10y ago
  Moreover, the city planners get to pick one of three doors only one of which has a traffic abatement program. After choosing a door, one of the other doors is revealed to have a goat behind it. Should they switch doors? http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4132 http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4132

sgnelson 10y ago

Suppose that the thieves escaped, and then later that night they killed your Uncle Ben. At that point you realize that with great power comes great responsibility. You go home, design a suit with a spider emblem on it, and then use your newly created powers, brought on by a radioactive spider bite for societal good, not personal gain.