Posted on 02/17/2006 12:22:42 AM PST by conservative in nyc
Godwin's law still applies though.
"You obviously weren't hit in the face by a ball kicked by a soccer player."
You obviously need to get yoursef a sense of humor and lighten up a bit.
Then someone complained that the girls should be allowed to play dodge ball with the boys. 12-year-old girls and boys playing this game together: bad idea. They had to add a new rule because of a girl named Dana. She developed early and in a big way. While most of us guys just ogled her in awe, some idiots with issues saw them as targets, hence the new "No chest shots on girls" rule.
The boy's parents have tried to stop this mess so why would you want to horse whip them? This is being prosecuted without their consent.
Why? Because I obviously didn't read that part and made faulty assumptions.
Horsewhip me.
Dodgeball 30+ years ago was one of the activities that permitted me to compete with the larger, more athletic kids.
The crime of battery is relatively easy to argue. Here's hoping that the lawyers and judges don't let it extend to children's games.
no advocacy, just a simple recollection of the facts on the ground at the time.
and, yes: I *do* think things were in some ways better back then, when the people remembered that they were mighty.
"Where does it say that wasn't being done? You're assuming that this was a normal game of wall ball, sissy boy got a fat lip, and now a bunch of PC ninnies are making big deal out of nothing. The only basis for your assumption is based on the word of the girl. "
Reality Check - one blogger with a hypothesis regarding possibly unpublished information who has no corroboration anywhere for his theory should not expect to compel others to accept this hypothetis as anything but his uncorroborated opinion.
"I think we all agree that parents are more than likely the problem here.
"
who is 'we?' THere are enough cases of nanny state waxing its power (kids with plastic knives for lunch arrested, kids with aspirin from parents arrested) that i see no basis for your conclusion. I don't care if they were picking on the kid (unknown), criminal charges are not the answer to dodge-ball in any sane society.
"Looks like your typical "my little angel can do no wrong" sort of parent. That he named her "Brittany" should set off all kinds of alarm bells."
Ok i fell for it, trolls are supposed to be more subtle. Yes, I am suggesting you are trolling, at least on this topic.
Child's name as a basis for broad judgements about the parent????????????
"Isn't that how we justify sociopathic behavior around here?"
Sociopathic behavior is post 182. I may be wrong about you trolling.
Boy we laughed when a kids face exploded in blood.
"THere are enough cases of nanny state waxing its power"
I misused the verb, should read There are enough case of the power of the nanny state waxing
hope this isn't more serious than dodgeballbattery.
one unexpected effect of this thread is to bring out posters with some interesting issues regarding childhood games.
Why? Inquiring minds want to know
Yep. No argument from me. I never stated criminal charges were the answer. I also never stated the "nanny state" should be involved (where did you draw the conclusion that that was my conclusion?). I'm all for less government. I'm all for better parenting.
I would not tolerate that behaviour from my kids if they were acting as bullies, and I've given my kids permission to stand up to bullies even if it eventually a means a trip to the principles office (I'll back their play if they're in the right). So far I haven't been called (knock on wood).
I remember having rock fights when I was in the 3rd grade. Now that was fun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.