analog

What an asinine series of rhetorical questions- do you (all of you) let your young children wander around unsupervised? I certainly hope not.

If there were parents out there supervising the young ones as they should be anyway, this would be a moot issue.

I realize that this person's house may be near a bus stop, or between your home and the bus stop, but here's the thing... there are two ages of children: dumb and happy (not dumb as in stupid, just clueless to the perils of the world), and smart and cautious. When they're dumb and happy, you have to watch over them constantly, yes? If the kid can't comprehend something like staying away from strangers, screaming if a stranger approaches them, and to stay with their friends at the stop, then they're dumb and happy- if they are old enough to be taught and understand the dangers of the world and how to avoid them, then they're smart and cautious.

So I ask you all- who is letting all the dumb and happy kids out on their own (unsupervised) to the bus stop? This is an ageless distinction, based on the child's ability to learn about dangers and what to do about them (partially based on maturity as well). The second question, then, is who is trying to foam-pad the entire world for the smart and cautious kids?

If a predator grabs a dumb and happy kid, where the fuck was the parent? If a smart and cautious kid is grabbed, then either the parent has made a bad judgment on the readiness of the child to be let alone to the bus stop, or you've got a situation where the child was literally grabbed up whole and taken off, not lured away or coerced- and that's an example of an act so brazen that it could have happened anywhere, and at any time; thus making it a pointless issue to hawk over those who should be ok by themselves. Hell, anyone can get kidnapped, it happens all the time.

I can tell you for a fact that my mom walked my brother and I to the bus stop (or drove, if necessary) and stayed there to be sure everything was ok until we got on... until our ages and maturity were such that we'd become smart and cautious and could be considered safe to travel by ourselves. I was born in 1981 to give perspective, and I was raised in a relatively small, peaceful town. In all reality, there was no threat at all- but she was there while we were dumb and happy children. For a while there, she even coordinated with another 2 or 3 parents on the street to take turns taking all the kids to the bus stop and watching over, so they didn't all have to go every day. It brings me back to something I seem to have to say all the time:

Where are all the fucking parents?

Moving a bus stop away from directly in front of his house isn't a bad idea, I don't disagree there- but you all make it sound like all of your children are out there alone with the alleged child predator (alleged because you have no idea what he actually did), and my question back to you all then would be- when your child is so alone and at the mercy of all these predators, where the hell are you? I understand people have jobs, people are busy and whatnot- but a job is not an excuse to not put the safety of your children FIRST.

And just to clarify- pulling favors of people who know people, and making calls to get a bus stop moved, and slandering a person violently before you even know what you're talking about are NOT protecting your child- you're just using a "padded room" maneuver. It is so named because all you're doing is attempting to put your kid in a zone where you believe they're safe enough to stay without you watching, so you can go back to ignoring them for a while.

I can't see an excuse for not watching your children while they're too young for them to be unsafe by themselves. Tell me, dear parents, what exactly is more important than the safety of your children- which you all say you cherish so dearly- that you cannot provide them the safety of your company? Hmm? Because that's what the whole thread is about. It's a simple question, so let's see the song and dance that ensues.