Personal Responsibility

[lsbskins1]

In the spirit of a previous exchange I will ask this:

Does taking personal responsibility mean that you are responsible only for yourself or does it mean you are willing to accept responsibility for all the ways your actions and ideas can and do affect others? I ask this within the bounds of all social interaction. Do your ideas on this issue inform your political ideology, the job choices you make, where you want your kids to grow up, etc.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: In the spirit of a previous exchange I will ask this: Does taking personal responsibility mean that you are responsible only for yourself or does it mean you are willing to accept responsibility for all the ways your actions and ideas can and do affect others?

Being personally responsible means being openly accountable for your actions as an adult, and being trusted to respect the equal rights of others until that trust is violated by violating those rights of others.

Isbskins said: I ask this within the bounds of all social interaction. Do your ideas on this issue inform your political ideology, the job choices you make, where you want your kids to grow up, etc.

Yes, my ideas on this issue help form my political ideology, the job choices I make, where I want to live, etc.

[lsbskins1]

So, if you, as an adult, build a pool that is known in the legal lexicon as an "attractive nusience" , you are not responsible, as an adult, to provide some sort of barrier to that attraction. You do not, after all, have a fundemental right to a pool, do you?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, if you, as an adult, build a pool that is known in the legal lexicon as an "attractive nusience" , you are not responsible, as an adult, to provide some sort of barrier to that attraction. You do not, after all, have a fundemental right to a pool, do you?

Here is the flaw in your argument, the very premise rests on it.


You "assume" that the "nusience" is the swimming pool, when in fact the "nuscience is the child left alone to trespass where they are not wanted.


Here is where true personal responsibility comes into play. If you're spitting out little replicas, you need to assume responsibility for them like the law requires you to do.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: So, if you, as an adult, build a pool that is known in the legal lexicon as an "attractive nusience" , you are not responsible, as an adult, to provide some sort of barrier to that attraction.

The barrier is my legal deed to the land. I have no obligation to protect the pool from unwanted or unsolicited use or invasion unless I so seek to do such. A responsible thing to do would be to put markers around the pool, such as a rope fence or decorative fence, to deter stumbling in, or a barrier fence to prevent it, but that should not be dictated by law, certainly not federal law.

Isbskins said: You do not, after all, have a fundemental right to a pool, do you?

I don't need a fundamental right to a pool, as I have a fundamental right to own land, and modify it as I deem fit within the respect of the rights of others.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Here is the flaw in your argument, the very premise rests on it. You "assume" that the "nusience" is the swimming pool, when in fact the "nuscience is the child left alone to trespass where they are not wanted. Here is where true personal responsibility comes into play. If you're spitting out little replicas, you need to assume responsibility for them like the law requires you to do.

Here is the flaw in your argument. You assume children are as responsible as little adults. They are not. And you assume they should be made to pay for the failures of the adults in their lives. It is the child, after all ,who will die. Not you, nor the parent you feel is the responsible party. That is why the law agrees with me and not you.

[Praxius]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Does taking personal responsibility mean that you are responsible only for yourself or does it mean you are willing to accept responsibility for all the ways your actions and ideas can and do affect others?

I am responsible for my own decisions and actions, nobody else's, as they should act the same way.

If I go and grab a bag of fireworks and strap them to my back, set them on fire and run down the street, that was the decision I made on my own, and anybody who it hit by a rocket or looses an eye, I would be responsible for, because they did not agree to my actions, whereby my actions interfeered with their lives.

If I go and suggest something to tell someone to go do something, and then they go and do it, they are responsible for their own actions. Everybody has the choice to say no.

I ask this within the bounds of all social interaction. Do your ideas on this issue inform your political ideology, the job choices you make, where you want your kids to grow up, etc.

For the most part yes.... I treat my life around me as though anything and everything that does occur, I have a level of responsibility for it happening, even when I don't have any responsibility for something occuring.

So, if you, as an adult, build a pool that is known in the legal lexicon as an "attractive nusience" , you are not responsible, as an adult, to provide some sort of barrier to that attraction. You do not, after all, have a fundemental right to a pool, do you?

Nope, and neither do any of the idiots who trespass on my property to swim or trip into my pool without my permission.

Since I had an underground pool growing up, I'm aware of idiots climbing over to swim in it, even through we had a fence all around the backyard. As the laws are now, we have a responsibility for fencing it off so todlers and poodles don't go for a drink.....

But to me, if you see my pool, and you decide to climb over my fence to swim in it, and you drown in my pool, or you get wrapped up in the solar blanket because you were too dumb to check before you jumped because you're drunk or whatever..... that isn't my responsibility and in fact, I should charge your next of kin for scooping your arse out of my pool and cleaning out the crap you unloaded out of your system when you died.

To me the term "Attractive Nusience" is just another load of Moral BS and blame shifting. Individuals themselves should have the common brain fuction to determine what they plan on doing will be good or bad.... If you see a construction site not completely fenced off in one location and you decide it'd be cool to see what's all going on.... technically the construction site could have some liability for him being injured or killed..... but where is this idiot's responsibility to realise that he's entering a construction site without permission or proper equipment?

If I go into someone's backyard who has a pool and no fence, I'm not stupid enough to think "Oh well there's no fence so I can do what I want and they'll get the blame." Because although that may make you feel all happy that you won't get charged for anything you may end up screwing up, it's not gonna help you any if you're dead.

If there was a law to enforce people to use their own common sense, instead of making laws that place the blame onto other people for other's stupid decisions, then this world might be a better place and possibly remove some twits in this planet at the same time, via good ol fasion natural selection.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Here is the flaw in your argument. You assume children are as responsible as little adults.

Nowhere did I assume that. I contended that it is the parents responsibility to keep an eye on their children, or to keep them from trespassing on my property.


Surely that is not too much to ask a parent to keep an eye on the chiild until it's old enough to know not to wander into somebody elses swimming pool.

Quote by: lsbskins1 They are not. And you assume they should be made to pay for the failures of the adults in their lives.

No, I expect the parents to be responsible, or "guilty" as the case may be.

Quote by: lsbskins1 It is the child, after all ,who will die. Not you, nor the parent you feel is the responsible party.

And how you see that s my resposibility is what I'm calling into question. I see it as the responsibility of the parent.

Quote by: lsbskins1 That is why the law agrees with me and not you.

No, bad Judges legislating from the bench is why the law agrees with you.

[Milton Bradley]

As usual when attempting to debate with lsbskins, all of our questions go unanswered while we do our best to help her to understand our side.


Just go look at how many unanswered questions that are directed at her in the last two pages of the debate that lead to this thread.

[lsbskins1]

List em, I'll answer... but you guys seem to have trouble knowing the difference between agreeing and answering. And I do not really consider questions like "What page of the Communist Manifesto is that on" as anything more than rhetorical. And sometimes, it is perfectly valid to answer a question by asking the question that "question" begs. Be sure that I am not simply disagreeing with the premise of your question and answering by way of asking you to consider the "invalid" nature of the initial question.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 In the spirit of a previous exchange I will ask this: Does taking personal responsibility mean that you are responsible only for yourself or does it mean you are willing to accept responsibility for all the ways your actions and ideas can and do affect others? I ask this within the bounds of all social interaction.

"All the ways [one's] actions and ideas can and do [sic!] affect others" could be infinite. We must establish a limit to what an individual human being can control (i.e. directly).

IMO, personal responsibility means considering oneself morally culpable for that which he can control.

Do your ideas on this issue inform your political ideology, the job choices you make, where you want your kids to grow up, etc.

Yes, yes, and yes.

- Rob

[5010]

Lsb,
You quote this:
"If you're spitting out little replicas, you need to assume responsibility for them"

and say this:
"You assume children are as responsible as little adults"

But there is no way such an assumption matches the statement.

Now if you want to prevent children from dying, consider this:

The attractive nuisance doctrine prevents death and injury compared to a doctrine that places no liability on anyone. Great!

However, if parents/guardians are liable for the death and injury of children under their care when allowing them to run wild and unsupervised, then it would prevent even more deaths. Why? Because it gives people with kids incentive to protect them from all dangers, not just those that are attractive nuisances on private property.

So not only does it mean less kids getting killed by someone's pool or trampoline, but ALSO less kids geting run over by trains, falling out of trees, slaughtered by stray dogs, picked up raped and murdered by child predators, falling off cliffs, drowning in creeks rivers and lakes, getting stuck in culverts, etc etc etc etc etc etc........

So yes, children die if you do nothing. Less children die if you make people who aren't in charge of them responsible. And even less children die if you make people who are in charge of them responsible.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Here is the flaw in your argument. You assume children are as responsible as little adults. They are not.

I wasn't aware that responsibility was an objective property. It would be more accurate if you said "I think children are not as responsible as adults". Responsibility is a matter of opinion, not fact.

And you assume they should be made to pay for the failures of the adults in their lives.

Who is (or would be) making them pay?

It is the child, after all, who will die. Not you, nor the parent you feel is the responsible party.

Here I'm assuming you're talking about your swimming-pool scenario. Well, in that scenario, the owner of the swimming pool has no control over a child who trespasses onto the property and drowns in the pool.

That is why the law agrees with me and not you.

That's nice. :rolleyes:

- Rob

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: 5010 Now if you want to prevent children from dying, consider this: The attractive nuisance doctrine prevents death and injury compared to a doctrine that places no liability on anyone. Great! However, if parents/guardians are liable for the death and injury of children under their care when allowing them to run wild and unsupervised, then it would prevent even more deaths. Why? Because it gives people with kids incentive to protect them from all dangers, not just those that are attractive nuisances on private property. So not only does it mean less kids getting killed by someone's pool or trampoline, but ALSO less kids geting run over by trains, falling out of trees, slaughtered by stray dogs, picked up raped and murdered by child predators, falling off cliffs, drowning in creeks rivers and lakes, getting stuck in culverts, etc etc etc etc etc etc...

Oddly, this is the common sense from which thier current philosphy supposedly "evolved".

[5010]

Quote by: Autolykos Well, in that scenario, the owner of the swimming pool has no control over a child who trespasses onto the property and drowns in the pool.

To be fair, we must admit that barricades do provide some control over those who wish to breach them. They can slow others down or prevent their access to the other side. One who owns a pool can control some children with a barricade, but we're talking very small children.

But what is effective? If we want to control older children who are truly attracted to the pool because they are old enough to have experienced the joy of swimming, then we would have to place it indoors and lock all exits. To someone of that age, a mere fence is but a gentle reminder to stay away from the pool they already know exists because yesterday they heard people laughing and splashing and today they know no one is home. Kids become smart 1st, then wise later

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 List em, I'll answer...

OK smartypants, these are just the ones I asked that you conveniently overlooked.


Hmmm, is it "despotic", or within the "legal duty" of the elected officials?


As a matter of fact, isn't it a deriliction of duty not to round these people up under the current law? Why yes, I believe it is.


Where is the violent oppression you contend is occuring when my government pursues know fugitives actively hiding from the law?


How am I to know their ( illegal aliens ) motivation for crossing that imaginary line?


Why don't you? ( want my government to live up one of it's few legitimately granted powers, and protect me from foreign adversarries. Be they economic, or physical threats.) ( By rounding up people here illegally. )


So why is it wrong for the government to attempt to hold illegal aliens accountable to the law in your opinion?


I find it quite odd that advocates for "education" in other areas ( i.e. drugs, sex, etc... ) don't see education as the solution in these examples, but favor restrictions, or transfer of responsibility as the answer. Why is education not the answer in this example?


It didn't take a community to concieve, and birth the child, so why do you see it as the responsibility of the community to raise said child?


And finally, I have this most important question to ask.


If my swimming pool is an "attractive nusience", is your attractive young daughter also an "attractive nusience"?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: 5010 Lsb, You quote this: "If you're spitting out little replicas, you need to assume responsibility for them" and say this: "You assume children are as responsible as little adults" But there is no way such an assumption matches the statement. Now if you want to prevent children from dying, consider this: The attractive nuisance doctrine prevents death and injury compared to a doctrine that places no liability on anyone. Great! However, if parents/guardians are liable for the death and injury of children under their care when allowing them to run wild and unsupervised, then it would prevent even more deaths. Why? Because it gives people with kids incentive to protect them from all dangers, not just those that are attractive nuisances on private property. So not only does it mean less kids getting killed by someone's pool or trampoline, but ALSO less kids geting run over by trains, falling out of trees, slaughtered by stray dogs, picked up raped and murdered by child predators, falling off cliffs, drowning in creeks rivers and lakes, getting stuck in culverts, etc etc etc etc etc etc........ So yes, children die if you do nothing. Less children die if you make people who aren't in charge of them responsible. And even less children die if you make people who are in charge of them responsible.

And even less children die if both the parents and the neighbors take a reasonable level of responsibility. It is reasonable to require fencing and reasonable to require parents to supervise their children. I have never once said that a parent who left a 7 year old to wander the neighborhood should not be punished. I did say that it is ALSO reasonable to require the fence to be built. Neither absolves either of responsibility.

[5010]

Quote by: lsbskins1 It is reasonable to require fencing and reasonable to require parents to supervise their children.

Then what you are talking about is making the unfenced neighbor share liability with the aloof parent. This is quite a different matter from the attractive nuisance doctrine, where the aloof parent is the plaintiff and the unfenced neighbor is the defendant.

If liability is shared, who then is the plaintiff and who is the defendant?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley OK smartypants, these are just the ones I asked that you conveniently overlooked. Hmmm, is it "despotic", or within the "legal duty" of the elected officials? As a matter of fact, isn't it a deriliction of duty not to round these people up under the current law? Why yes, I believe it is. Where is the violent oppression you contend is occuring when my government pursues know fugitives actively hiding from the law? How am I to know their ( illegal aliens ) motivation for crossing that imaginary line? Why don't you? ( want my government to live up one of it's few legitimately granted powers, and protect me from foreign adversarries. Be they economic, or physical threats.) ( By rounding up people here illegally. ) So why is it wrong for the government to attempt to hold illegal aliens accountable to the law in your opinion? I find it quite odd that advocates for "education" in other areas ( i.e. drugs, sex, etc... ) don't see education as the solution in these examples, but favor restrictions, or transfer of responsibility as the answer. Why is education not the answer in this example? It didn't take a community to concieve, and birth the child, so why do you see it as the responsibility of the community to raise said child? And finally, I have this most important question to ask. If my swimming pool is an "attractive nusience", is your attractive young daughter also an "attractive nusience"?

1)It is the legal duty of your government to enforce the relevant code. The Border Patrol has it's job. The Zoning Commission has it's job. I never said that one should be enforced and the other not. That was your assumption of my position. And if I agree that Border enforcement is a legitimate function of the government, that does not mean I agree that all current code is just. It also does not mean that I agree with your list of legitimate enforcement areas.

2) I never claimed it was violent oppression on the part of the government to enforce the law. I asked why perhaps you, and most definitly others, consider it violent oppression when it was tax law being enforced, and not violent oppression when it was immigration law. You are confusing issues.

3) It is not the business of you or me and especially not the business of law enforcement to know anyone's mind. It is not a crime to think about doing anything. Your question on knowing the state of mind of individuals is worse than irrelavent, it smacks of something very unamerican. But, I understand that alot of people (maybe you, maybe not you) think that the danger or terrorism excuses any move toward loss of liberty. Personally, I think it is better to not view every illegal as a possible terrorist, because that tends to create the marginalized, adversarial relationship that breeds terror rather than curbing it.

4) Education is a piece of the puzzle when it comes to child safety. I do not think it is a complete answer. I think you should bring all of your resources to bear when it comes to public safety. Education, encouraging personal responsibility and reasonable law and effective law enforcement. They are not mutually exclusive, despite what you may think.

5) As I said before, the child is part of the community and therefore a part of the communities responsibility.

6) No. The concepts are quite obviously not the same and only someone who had a serious lack of brain power or a dogma lock on the brain would ask that question.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: 5010 Then what you are talking about is making the unfenced neighbor share liability with the aloof parent. This is quite a different matter from the attractive nuisance doctrine, where the aloof parent is the plaintiff and the unfenced neighbor is the defendant. If liability is shared, who then is the plaintiff and who is the defendant?

Maybe neither, maybe both. Criminal law may go after the parent and civil enforcement go after the pool owner. Do people get fat or starve in your world? Is there no mixed result or grays in 5010 Land?