I've sometimes joked about the "Red Green Daycare", but I never thought....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataholic

Someone said something about how no one would do something like this (duct tape) simply because they saw a picture of something like this (duct tape). I was merely suggesting that we should never underestimate the stupidity of people. Someone thought it was an appropriate punishment to duct tape a child's appendages, put them in a dog crate, and drip water on them. To me, punishment or not, that is stupidity.

I love practical jokes. I am the joker of the office. Duct taping a child to a wall as a joke or as a punishment or as a way to say, "I can do this" seems like a bad choice to me.

It reminds me of the late Michael Jackson, and his mistake of dangling his baby over a ledge/from a window. I don't doubt for a moment he didn't intend to place his child in danger. I don't doubt for a moment he thought of the public's perception of it. I think he made a poor choice. I have made plenty of them myself. I do go out of my way to limit them, and I would certainly never broadcast them on the internet.

I disagree with people that say this won't lead to someone else doing it. I think when we are exposed to photos like these, we lose a bit of the "what was she thinking" reaction. We see things (not just this photo) over and over again, and we become de-sensitized to them. That is what I think photos like these can do. De-sensitize us to conduct, and push the bounds of conduct. Eventually, it gets out of hand. It's 'ok' to do this to a child, and look, there is a stuffed animal in the picture, so we know it is all in good fun. Let's see if we can do it for 30 minutes. Wait! Let's see if she eventually falls asleep.

Watch the news, stupid stuff -that begins innocently enough- gets out of hand all the time. Why is locking a child in a dog crate any different than placing the child in a play pen? Because it seems wrong. We can't articulate it fully, but it just seems worse. That is how I see this picture. Was the baby harmed? I don't think so. Did it take 2 minutes to do this (which is kinda hard to believe), and did they immediately take the baby down? Maybe. It still just seems wrong.

---

Well-- someone who understands the real meaning of this whole ductape business. Thank you for that post Cataholic. Might just make a few people think twice before making fun of the seriousness of this picture.
For those who think it's funny and think we should ban duct tape, rope, belts or belt buckles, extension cords, wooden spoons etc etc--- try spending a day with someone from CPS or maybe spend a day in court listening and looking at what extension cords, wooden spoons, duct tape etc etc,( too numerous to mention all the things used) and see what those things can do to a child when used by an angry parent. Might not think it's such a big joke after witnessing some of the horrors. All I can say is thank god most kids don't fall through the cracks and end up in loving homes. To those that do get missed maybe people should work harder to not put silly ideas in the so called parents' heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataholic

Someone said something about how no one would do something like this (duct tape) simply because they saw a picture of something like this (duct tape). I was merely suggesting that we should never underestimate the stupidity of people. Someone thought it was an appropriate punishment to duct tape a child's appendages, put them in a dog crate, and drip water on them. To me, punishment or not, that is stupidity.

I love practical jokes. I am the joker of the office. Duct taping a child to a wall as a joke or as a punishment or as a way to say, "I can do this" seems like a bad choice to me.

It reminds me of the late Michael Jackson, and his mistake of dangling his baby over a ledge/from a window. I don't doubt for a moment he didn't intend to place his child in danger. I don't doubt for a moment he thought of the public's perception of it. I think he made a poor choice. I have made plenty of them myself. I do go out of my way to limit them, and I would certainly never broadcast them on the internet.

I disagree with people that say this won't lead to someone else doing it. I think when we are exposed to photos like these, we lose a bit of the "what was she thinking" reaction. We see things (not just this photo) over and over again, and we become de-sensitized to them. That is what I think photos like these can do. De-sensitize us to conduct, and push the bounds of conduct. Eventually, it gets out of hand. It's 'ok' to do this to a child, and look, there is a stuffed animal in the picture, so we know it is all in good fun. Let's see if we can do it for 30 minutes. Wait! Let's see if she eventually falls asleep.

Watch the news, stupid stuff -that begins innocently enough- gets out of hand all the time. Why is locking a child in a dog crate any different than placing the child in a play pen? Because it seems wrong. We can't articulate it fully, but it just seems worse. That is how I see this picture. Was the baby harmed? I don't think so. Did it take 2 minutes to do this (which is kinda hard to believe), and did they immediately take the baby down? Maybe. It still just seems wrong.

---

Not sure why you quoted me in saying all this, not that I'm offended . . . just found it odd. I was simply wondering how he did this as punishment but that it was also a joke taken too far. (Taken from the article)

I definitely think people "get ideas" from photos and videos, but I also think those people already have stupid tendencies. I can look at these photos all day, every day, and never duct tape my daughter to anything.

@Finns Mom- I thought it was customary, when responding to someone's comment, to quote it, so people would know to whom I was replying to. You said something about punishment and joke going too far..I responded. How else was I supposed to do it so that you didn't find it 'odd'? I am always up for learning proper internet etiquette!

I made sure not to quote you here, though. But, I still had to reference you by name, so that people would know to whom I was responding. Seems like it would be simpler simply to quote you. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataholic

@Finns Mom- I thought it was customary, when responding to someone's comment, to quote it, so people would know to whom I was replying to. You said something about punishment and joke going too far..I responded. How else was I supposed to do it so that you didn't find it 'odd'? I am always up for learning proper internet etiquette!

I made sure not to quote you here, though. But, I still had to reference you by name, so that people would know to whom I was responding. Seems like it would be simpler simply to quote you. :confused:

---

I didn't find your quoting me offensive, as I said, but I do find everything about this comment rude and dripping with sarcasm, which I find unnecessary.

I know the proper etiquette when responding to someone and do not have a problem with being quoted. I just didn't understand how the comments you left had anything to do with my comment about the article. It seemed more general to the rest of the thread.

I'm respectfully bowing out of this conversation and thread at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataholic

@Finns Mom- I thought it was customary, when responding to someone's comment, to quote it, so people would know to whom I was replying to. You said something about punishment and joke going too far..I responded. How else was I supposed to do it so that you didn't find it 'odd'? I am always up for learning proper internet etiquette!

I made sure not to quote you here, though. But, I still had to reference you by name, so that people would know to whom I was responding. Seems like it would be simpler simply to quote you. :confused:

---

For what it's worth, I found nothing at all sarcastic/rude with this post.

Many a time I have read a post, and wondered who in the heck that the poster is referring to. Was it in response to something I posted, or was it directed to one of the half dozen or so people that posted after I did? Do I answer, and look stupid (again) because it wasn't directed at me??? I'd rather be "quoted" and know it was me, and be able to respond (or not). Isn't that why we have the option to "reply with quote"? :confused:

Say what? Lol..I seriously thought I was guilty of some posting etiquette, and just wanted to put my question out there. You questioned my conduct, you found it, "odd". I explained my conduct, and told you the basis for it.

Sheesh.

(I am responding to Finns mom, but I am not allowed to quote her)

Now, THAT was sarcasm....)