Quentin:
When I was ten I used to go with my mother, a janitor, and vacuum the carpets."....( Terra ).....That is a reveling statement as to your mind set. I sincerly hope you seek the proper therapy needed to deal with the deep pain in which you live.
Quentin; I do not know what you mean by "revealing statement" but I'll venture a guess.
If you, for one moment, believe that I was traumatized by my experience with working alongside my mother at the age of ten; that is ridiculous. I used that example to clearly indicate that I had nothing against children working with their relatives. Then I contrasted that with the radically different conditions that children would find themselves in work conditions dominated by adults, who are strangers.
I hope somehow, someway your pain can be assuaged, after which it can be delt with. I wish you well...
As for your patronizing statement about my mental health I can make similar quips as to how morally and intellectually DENSE you are in not perceiving the clearly stated points I have made (which you have judiciously snipped out of your quotations-see below).
You have furthermore confused passion with mental derangement. That is a common accusation by those who are in an opposing side of a debate. I only get to that level when it becomes obvious that the other side is being obtuse and failing to respond to the facts presented. At least Sabastious correctly perceived the situation; I pity you for not having his discernment.
Three questions;... 1. Are you asserting that relative's do not, or ever rape and abuse childern?... 2. Are you asserting that the neighborhood a child lives in never has any rappist, or abusers of childern?...3. That the only place rape and abuse would occur is in a work place enviroment? I ask these questions because of the bloody shirt waving of your fictious commentary below.
Just as an aside, I found your typo on "rappist" quite funny. On the serious side here are my point for point rebuttals on those three statements:
- That question about relatives and neighbors being potential rapeists and abusing their children is completely irrelevant. In fact if I had brought up the issue of relatives and neighbors being potential rapists, all of you would have howled to high heaven at my statement. You would have each told me, in righteous indignation, that I was implying that your relatives were potential rapists. Not only would that have been an inappropriate remark on my part but it would also be pointless since those children would not have to be working to be exposed to raping/abusing relatives and neighbors. And if it's inappropriate and irrelevant for me to bring it up it is equally inappropriate and irrelevant for you to bring it up.
- The question about the work place not being the only place where rape and abuse occur is equally ridiculous. The point is that you increase the chances of those things happening when your children are in a position where you are not supervising them. Why the hell would you want to increase their chances of such a thing happening? Especially in a context, like I have repeatedly brought up (AND YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY IGNORED), of a hardware/department store where thewre are a lot of employees.
- You claimed that your motivation for asking these questions is because of my fictitious examples below. YOU FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MY EXAMPLES WERE BASED ON THE ENUMERATED POINTS BELOW. THOSE POINTS WHICH I GAVE, FAR FROM BEING FICTITIOUS ARE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL. THE POTENTIAL POSSIBILITIES I GAVE ARE, IN THE BULLETED LIST, ARE COMMON SENSE DEDUCTIONS BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL. IF YOU CHALLENGE THAT, THEN RESPOND TO THOSE ENUMERATED POINTS. YOU JUDICIOUSLY LEFT THEM OUT OF YOUR QUOTATION OF ME. YOU PASTED EVERYTHING ELSE SO WHY DO YOU KEEP RUNNING AWAY FROM THOSE POINTS WHICH ARE THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE?
Bottom line, Quentin and company; I CHALLENGE YOU TO RESPOND SPECIFICALLY TO THE BELOW EXAMPLES. QUIT DODGING THE ISSUE.
I have also challenged you with a question. By virtue of your not answering to that simple question, it becomes obvious that there is a lack of balls (or ovaries) with which to give an answer. If you were to answer it, any answer you give-it's a simple yes or no question-would show where you are truly coming from:
Would any of you allow your virgin (or non-virgin)
14 year old daughter to work in Home Depot?
Please don't run away.
- First point of emphasis. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SHOVELING SNOW ON THE SIDEWALK OR WORKING FOR YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS.
- It is obvious that we're talking about the employment of children ANYWHERE specifically environments where there are a large number of adult workers.
- No allowance for State authorities to inspect employers who employ children. WHY? So that those employers that are so disposed can get away with anything? This alone gives reason to believe Senator Cunningham has absolutely no concern for the safety of those children.
- We cannot even assume that a child's presence is evidence of employment. Why would anyone want to hide the fact that a child is working in a particular place.
- CHILDREN UNDER 16 ALLOWED TO WORK IN ANY CAPACITY IN MOTELS WHERE SEXUAL ACTIVITY IS COMMON! So a 14 year old girl can work "in any capacity" such as a chambermaid. This means that she has to enter bedrooms.
- Prohibitions on employment for children under 14. No limits as to hours or time of day.
