pixxelkick @ pixxelkick @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

543

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's more like it, thank you!

Source? This is just some random picture, I'd prefer if stuff like this gets posted and shared with actual proof backing it up.

While this might be true, we should hold ourselves to a standard better than just upvoting what appears to literally just be a random image that anyone could have easily doctored, not even any kind of journalistic article or etc backing it.

I thought he already put tariffs on us? And then again?

As a Canadian, all I can say is "hey wait a minute, I've seen this one before!"

I'm shocked this sorta shit still happens in 2025, how did this come into being? Thus might be a rabbit hole I go down, who founded this program, who vetted it, etc

If literally anyone thinks "it's okay that Trump bombed Iran, it was the right move"...

Then couldnt you just argue that "if it was such an obviously right move, wouldn't it have been easy to get congress to approve it?"

It's illogical to on one hand say it was the right thing to do, while ignoring the fact he did it without approval.

If it was so right, then approval would've been easy to get...?

What’s not normal is the shift of responsibility from drivers to victims.

Imagine unironically thinking that if a person jumps out on a busy road in front of a moving car and gets hit, somehow thats the driver's fault.

How many layers deep inside your echo chamber are you?

We can’t keep prioritizing cars, leaving no room for pedestrians and kids to move freely, then blame the victims.

The answer to this is not to let your seven year old child go wander out into traffic on a road, thats an insane kind of response.

You don't get to go "Well because we don't have enough crosswalks, better just let kids kill themselves, cuz they outta just be allowed to"

That's an absolutely insane kind of response to the issue.

Cars sucking does not excuse the mother's behavior here. Stroads being dangerous literally means her behavior was negligent. A lack of crosswalks or safer alternatives does not excuse her behavior.

You're logic is on par with going "Well this mom let her seven year old wander around on a pier on a lake unsupervised. Her kid fell in the water and drowned. But really the city shouldn't have made the lake that deep so really the mom isn't at fault here. Kids should be able to safely wander around unsupervised on piers on lakes without worrying about drowning. In a perfect world every pier is built in a way that makes it impossible for kids to fall off them and drown. So yeah, the mom did nothing wrong"

Do you see how insane that sounds? No mate, that's not how the real world works.

if younger children (under 8) should be with an adult or older sibling, and if 10 is old enough to walk alone, then 7 with a 10 year old is fine to walk 300m home.

Incorrect.

Being old enough to walk home alone is not equivalent to being old enough to escort a younger sibling on top of that.

That's literally additional responsibility.

You are effectively going:

"If 4 is greater than 3, and 4 is greater than 2, then surely 4 is greater than 3 + 2 as well!"

You are stacking multiple simultaneously responsibilities together.

A 10 year old as just barely maybe responsible enough to walk alone, and even then I would caveat that that's based off them walking home alone in a safe environment

There's a huge difference between a 10 year old walking home alone on a quiet street vs busy road.

But even setting that aside...

And then if you think a 10 year old is old enough to watch over a younger sibling, barely...

Both responsibilities at the same time are now more than that

Responsibilities compound, this isn't complicated.

I would say 12~13 bare minimum to simultaneously watch over a 7 year old, alone, while also being in a higher danger area (like a 4 lane busy road)

For a safer scenario, like a quiet street or at the park, I'd say 11 to 12

For a very safe scenario, like watching them at home or in your own yard, then yes, 10 is fine.

You can't just take each variable individually and say it's fine, and then assert the same is true when you compound them all together.

God, I really hope you don't have kids if you seriously think it's cool to let a unsupervised 10 year old watch a 7 year old near a busy road, that's exceptionally negligent, lol

"Should be able to" doesn't mean jack shit in terms of fault here.

The reality is, it wasnt safe. Yeah, it would be nice if it was safe.

But it wasn't safe, and any parent that isn't a negligent idiot would know it's not safe, this is literally the Fuck Cars lemmy, so you should know how dangerous a 4 lane road is.

And thus you should know not to let your kids out unsupervised near one.

I don't give a shit how safe we would like ot to be, the functional inference of "was this mother negligent or not* isn't based off how safe we'd like it to be

It's functional of how safe/dangerous it actually is at the time.

It's like if a mother let's her kids play unsupervised in a fucking hurricane and you try and argue "well there shouldn't be a hurricane"

No one should give a shit, there very clearly, obviously, and demonstratebly was a fucking hurricane, so don't fucking let your kids play in it. Don't be a fucking dumb ass, supervise your children in potentially dangerous situations.

If this was some like a quiet neighborhood 1.5 lane sleepy street I'd be on the mom's side more here.

But it was a fucking 4 lane busy road

Yes, that should be obviously negligent behavior to literally anyone with 2 braincells to rub together.

Fuck cars, but also fuck negligent parents that let their kids play near fucking traffic.

Reread what you wrote.

A 10 year old being able to walk home is not the same as that 10 year old also being responsible for a 7 year old

This isn't rocket science.

to not keeping your children on a leash for the entire 18 years they are minors

Hyperbole.

Theres, crazy as it sounds, a reasonable middle ground between:

1. letting your SEVEN YEAR OLD play UNSUPERVISED near a fucking FOUR LANE BUSY ROAD vs
2. Putting a leash on your teenager

The fact you had to reach for such insane hyperbole demonstrates how out to lunch you are. Yes, the woman was 100% legally negligent, its absolutely fucking insane to try and pretend letting a SEVEN YEAR OLD play with no adults around near a fucking busy ass four lane road. Are you genuinely insane?

God I hope you don't have kids, lol.

Interesting that you frame a parent losing their child in a tragic accident as “getting off scot free”

Because when you get one of your kids fucking killed due to negligence, you shouldn't be allowed to keep your other kids too. You have very clearly made it obvious you are not responsible enough to have any children in your care and CPS should take your kids away, and yes, you 100% should have legal action taken against you.

This has nothing to even do with cars, if parents in ANY way allow their child to die due to negligence in a way that would have been easily preventable if they had simply just fucking watched their damn kid, then they deserve to have their other kids taken away too.

That's super basic shit in any legal system. Doesn't matter how their kid died, they were exceedingly negligent here and fucked up super bad.

A 10 and 7 year old are not at all old enough to be allowed to wander around roads by themselves, thats extremely fucked up and indefensible. No sane parent would let their kids just wander off unsupervised in such a dangerous way.

This isn't some quiet little 1.5 lane street in the middle of a sleepy neighborhood, it was a fucking busy ass 4 lane road, thats insane to let your kids play around that unsupervised. The woman 100% deserves to be charges with negligence.

And if a 10 year old is perfectly capable of walking to school (literally according to everyone), a 7 year old with their 10 year old brother should also be perfectly fine walking TWO BLOCKS without the worry of being killed by a driver.

...No...

A 10 year old is not old enough to be responsible for a 7 year old, full stop. Most experts consider around 12 to 13 the minimum maturity for a child to be capable of being responsible for another child. 10 is definitely too young to be looking after another kid, wtf are you talking about.

I really hope you don't have kids...

I agree, well, at least car lanes.

Turn 2 of the lanes into bike lanes.

No one said otherwise.

Cars and roads sucking doesn't mean the mother's behavior is excused. Full stop.

You literally are acknowledging it's a death trap, and surely you must then agree that a parent who let's their children go play near the fucking death trap unsupervised is obviously being negligent.

You don't get to go "roads are death traps, and because they're death traps parents get off scott free if they let their children die to them"

No, in fact, it makes their behavior obviously worse because they should KNOW it was a bad idea

I never said stroads were good.

You understand two things can both be a problem at once right?

Stroads are indeed awful.

Letting your 7 year old go and play near one unsupervised is also very bad too

You don't get to just go "roads bad" and this excuses the mothers negligent behavior. Both can be bad, at the same time.

A history isn't needed, the child is seven years old, that's all that's needed.

Seven year olds are not nearly old enough to wander around 4 lane busy roads unsupervised, full stop.

That's blatant negligence, there's no getting past that.

It also was routine to beat your kids and get prescribed meth to take home, and give your kids alcohol and smokes

What sort of argument is this, times change as we learn things.

Supervising your fucking seven year old near a 4 lane road isnt helicopter parenting lol

... mate do you think this person did it intentionally?

I'm pretty confident this lemmy is overrun with bots spouting hallucinated LLM garbage.

Several posters here are citing shit not remotely true about this case, and somehow you all are just eating it up and upvoting them like crazy, clearly having not read the article yourselves or you'd realize how out to lunch the posts are.

Literally making up random facts that are extremely wrong. One talks about daughters, despite there being zero daughters mentioned, only sons. Others bringing up some random dude from 2011

And when called out they backpedal with more random garbage that doesn't even make sense.

Yall, you get the fact these are obviously bots, right? Read the fucking article and stop upvoting obviously wrong statements, what us wrong with you?

He's gonna live with the fact that some mom let her 7 year old run out into traffic... that's not exactly his fault. He's probably fuckin traumatized now because she was a terrible parent.

Let's start with maybe, I dunno, not letting 7 year old kids go out and play near 4 lane busy roads or something? Maybe supervise your fucking kids though?

Driver did nothing wrong, the kid jumped into the road, the fuck is he supposed to do there.