New York Has Ban On 'Childless Adults' From Parks (Woman Ticketed)

[matcom]

:popcorn:

<snip>

The verdict is in and most New Yorkers - at least those who took the Daily News' informal poll yesterday - think the law banning adults without children from some city parks is "crazy."

"This whole idea is just absurd!" wrote one angry New Yorker in response to The News' story about a woman ticketed for sitting on a park bench in a Manhattan playground.

Cops cited Sandra Catena, a 47-year-old belly dancer, on Saturday as she sat in Rivington Playground on Forsyth St.

A sign at the entrance of the playground cites several prohibitions, including: "Adults Except in the Company of Children." Catena said she did not see it.

After confronting the woman for sitting in the playground alone, the two officers issued her a summons.

Catena now faces 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine if convicted. Her case goes to court in November.

E-mail responses to the story poured into The News. Most called the law "an outrage," "ridiculous" and "discriminating."

"We pay our taxes. We have the right to sit anywhere in the park we want to!" wrote one woman.

One incensed New Yorker called for a revolution of sorts.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/350554p-298973c.html

[Mrs.Matcom]

1. ooo

:popcorn:

[Shell Beau]

2. WHAT? WTF?

That is just weird, stupid, and absurd!!!!!

[TaleWgnDg]

327. Can you hear the telephone ringing right now at the

.
Can you hear the telephone ringing right now at the New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)? I can. Wha? Does New York City enjoy paying attorneys fees and other legal expenses when it drafts these unconstitutional city ordinances? Where's Mayor Bloomberg in all this? Ooopps. He's running for re-election. LOL



http://www.nyclu.org/

.

[CBGLuthier]

3. safe area my ass

Are they so foolish as to assume there are no married with kids pedophiles in the world.

I understand their intent but this gives a very, very false sense of security.

Hell, I would imagine those pedos with kids would be besides themselves with joy.

[Trigger Hippie]

4. Aw fuck.

What bullshit. :grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

[Squatch]

5. What if you have kids, but leave them at home?

[BikeWriter]

6. Stoopit. Stoopit. Stoopit.

[Telly Savalas]

7. In Toronto parents have implemented a radical policy

to protect their children from pedophiles at public playgrounds.

It's called "keeping an eye on your kids."

[nini]

9. exactly what my point was

watch you own kids parents.

[nini]

8. Should be no kids unless accompanied by adult who can watch them

this is nuts.

[kick-ass-bob]

10. As a parent of 2 young children, I just have to say

this is the stupidest law I think I have ever seen in my life.

:wtf::wtf::wtf:

[Pithlet]

29. I agree.

It is a stupid law. I have two small children also.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. cos of course its not like parents are EVER pedophiles

or babysitters..

[matcom]

12. nope

just Priests :hide:

[jmowreader]

211. And dirty hippies!

[JimmyJazz]

13. Actually, if there is a playground in the area, I think it's a good law.

When I go to a park with my children, I check out every single adult to see whether or not they have a reason for being in the park. If I see someone not clearly with a child, I keep my eye on them.

With playground equipment, it's damned near impossible to keep one child in view at all times, let alone two or more. If there are no adults in the area who are unaccompanied by children, the odds of someone being there for unsavory purposes diminishes.

As a parent, I like the law - again, provided the woman was in the area of a playground and not just in a park with trees and benches and such.

[Squatch]

14. "have a reason for being in the park"

How about just relaxing like everybody else?

[JimmyJazz]

16. The park where I take my kids has plenty of open space for

people to sit and relax who don't have children. If they are in the area of the playground and don't have children, I watch them VERY closely. They might be innocent, but I'm not going to take any chances.

[Squatch]

20. Cool, then you're doing the right thing by watching out for your kids

But banning access to other adults who do not have kids is just plain dumb.

[tjwmason]

28. I agree

I've taken my two young cousins to parks before - there is a great difference between a children's play-area, and the park more generally. (That said, I have been known to play on the swings - including once in full academic dress - but only do this when there aren't sprogs around, it's their play-area not mine afterall.)

If this concerns the specific play-area, then I'm perfectly happy with this law - though I wonder whether a slapped-wrist punishment would be more appropriate than a $1000 fine.

[hfojvt]

95. those fines and etc.

are always listed as "up to" so that is only the maximum penalty not the likely one even assuming a jury does not throw it out.

[northzax]

125. but even a conviction with sentance and fine waived

still is a sex-crime and leads to registration, for life.

[politicat]

67. You know, I don't have kids.

But I go to the parks to observe kids because sometimes I get insight into the emotional and social interactions of adolescents by watching smaller children play. Other times, I like the sound of kids playing because it is soothing - if kids can still play, not all can be totally wrong with the world (and the children in my life to whom I am genetically entitled to watch play - niece and nephew - are 700 and 1000 miles away). Still other times, it's to remind myself that while I like kids, I'm not ready to dedicate myself to the full-time care and feeding of one. I do the same thing with adults when I am out and about -- I'm a people watcher.

I'm not a pedophile. I'm not writing up the interactions of said children in any journal. I'm not experimenting on them, I'm not talking to the children, or even observing them directly in a way to disturb their play (because that would defeat my purpose.) I just want to have children and old people and the whole range of humanity as part of my life because that's the way we're built.

But you would have me banned from the parks that I support with my tax dollars at a higher rate than you do - being childless, we pay far more in taxes than you do. Your children have access to the parks from which you want to ban me and people like me because of me and people like me.

Think if the situation was reversed, and we made child-free parks and public spaces. You would throw fits if your kid was not allowed on the bike trails or hiking paths.

If you don't want your kids to fall prey to dangerous types, then keep an eye on them, teach them to think critically and be prudent with offers that seem too good to be true, help them learn to be brave and assertive (a pedophile is more likely to prey on a kid that appears fearful and uncertain than one who is confident, according to several studies). Check out their ministers/priests, teachers, babysitters, mentors and other adults - kids are more likely to be abused by someone in a position of trust than a stranger. Be suspicious of your brothers, brother-in-laws and male cousins, because an adult male relative is more of a danger to a child than a stranger.

But don't put the blame for pedophilia on random strangers who happen to be using a public park.

[Mad_Dem_X]

350. Great post!

"But you would have me banned from the parks that I support with my tax dollars at a higher rate than you do - being childless, we pay far more in taxes than you do. Your children have access to the parks from which you want to ban me and people like me because of me and people like me."

:applause:

[kick-ass-bob]

15. I have to disagree.

So I cannot enjoy watching kids play in the park if I am on my lunch break?

Sometimes I watch some kids at their after school thing while I wait for my bus, because I like to see people having fun - and no doubt, kids have more fun than anyone. It is just a spirit lifter.

That doesn't make me a pedophile.

[JimmyJazz]

17. I would be watching you closely. I'm sorry - you might be

perfectly innocent, but the next guy might not be.

[kick-ass-bob]

18. I don't care if you watch me, that's not the problem I have.

I might watch me, too.

My problem is being restricted from being able to sit there.
Punishing the innocent, and all that.

[imperialismispasse]

19. I gotta agree with that

I like watching kids play little league and pop warner football. I'm not a pervert and I would never talk to a stranger's kid or touch them for any reason. I just like to watch them having fun and enjoying the game. As a man though I know that I will be automatically suspicioned (not the word but you know what I mean) so I keep my distance and if I get weird looks I walk on. Thats just the nature of the world we live in.

[Midlodemocrat]

24. I have to agree with you, Bob.

I have watched kids in situations where it was apparent that there was no adult watching them, because I know I am not going to harm them, but another might.

I have sat in the parking lot at the elementary school more times than I can count waiting for some parents to pick up their kids, and the paid staff had already gone home.

I couldn't forgive myself if I didn't watch out for them.

OTOH, I am JJ's corner as well, someone who is at the playground without a child is going to be watched by me.

[kick-ass-bob]

82. I agree with both points. I differ with anyone who says that I cannot

legally enter a public area.

I am a hawk with my children at a public playground, but I do not expect a man sitting alone on a bench to have to leave simply because he does not have any children at the playground.

[northzax]

132. question:

would you support registration to enter a playground? like at a public school? let people in if they sign in, including children and parents? then the same restrictions apply to everyone, like at a public school. seems like it would solve the problem, right?

[kick-ass-bob]

136. A sign-in, sign-out system is ok in theory, but

that would mean you have to have someone handling such registration and access, which I think is overkill.

[northzax]

142. perhaps

but if the city decides that the security of children is a high enough priority so that a restriction is mandated, then there should be someone there to enforce the limited access.

[kick-ass-bob]

146. that is true. But then, I think this law is overkill as well.

Law: way overkill
security guard: overkill

:)

[Kire]

293. whether you "like the law" or not makes no difference

if it's unconstitutional, it has no business being on the books

some places should get patrolled more than others, and we shouldn't have a police state except in a time of martial law

[Deja Q]

21. Asinine. And if they pay their taxes, they have every right to go in.

[JimmyJazz]

22. Do you know the average time it takes a pedophile to lure a child

away from a park? - Children who have been taught about "Stranger Danger?" - it's 35 seconds. 35 fuckin' seconds. Even the most diligent parent can lose sight of a child for 35 seconds.

[Squatch]

23. He was replying to the OP.

[JimmyJazz]

25. oops - I have a hard time with the level 3 shit.

[northzax]

31. which is why most public playgrounds

including the ones in New York, have only one entrance and exit, you can keep one eye on that, if nothing else.

I can understand banning anyone too large from actually playing on the equipment, that's fine, but would this ban restrict someone from watching, aimlessly, from outside the fence?

[Jara sang]

36. Aren't most children who are sexually abused...

done so by a family member? Kind of like the statistic for those who are shot by their own gun in their own house.

[Starlight]

74. Parents & babysitters are FAR more likely to abuse kids than a stranger

in the park. There's actually very little chance that a child will be abducted by a stranger. Maybe we should be prohibiting caretakers from entering the park, since they're statistically much more likely to be abusers? :shrug:

[redqueen]

26. Can't these people find something serious to get outraged about?

OOOOO BUT I WANNA WATCH THOSE KIDS AND IT'S MY RIGHT AS A TAXPAYING CITIZEN!

:nopity:

[matcom]

27. its called not having access to a PUBLIC place

based on a circumstance. yes, it IS an outrage

[JimmyJazz]

30. But, it's a playground. It's a place for children to play and

parents should be entitled to some sense of security while they are playing with their children. If it were just a regular park, I would completely agree with you, but it's a playground. As a parent, it is very, very difficult to watch children and keep them in view at all times - they are constantly being hidden from view by the tunnels, the climbing walls and the other equipment. And, as I posted earlier, the average time it takes for a pedophile to lure a child away is 35 seconds.

[matcom]

32. the woman was sitting on a CITY PARK BENCH

if you want to build a bubble playground with no benches go right ahead.

you can even charge admission. but a PUBLIC CITY PARK BENCH can and SHOULD be used by everyone.

if you don't like it, don't use the playground. your spawn don't give you entitlements to public property

[JimmyJazz]

35. It's still not a park - it's a playground. It's an area meant to be

attractive to children and what is attractive to children is attractive to pedophiles. I think the safety of children supercedes this woman's rights. I'm sorry.

[matcom]

37. well, you would be wrong

take them to church. they should be safer there :sarcasm:

[JimmyJazz]

39. A law is enacted to protect children and it's wrong because

someone is inconvenienced? This is New York City, fer fux sake - Fine. Then I suppose it would be okay for her to demand entry onto the playground of a public school to eat her lunch. After all, it's public property and she is a tax paying citizen!

[northzax]

43. everyone who enters a public school has to be registered and have a reason

to be there. I support the same thing for public playgrounds. see below.

[JimmyJazz]

45. No you don't. You're being snarky and sarcastic.

Again, you pay taxes toward the public schools and those playgrounds - go demand to eat your lunch in the local school's cafeteria - after all, you're paying for it.

[northzax]

51. public schools, like public hospitals

are a public good, the supreme court says so. Therefore, as a public good, they are funded by the public. no problem. but everyone in those places has to be registered. everyone. the kids, the parents, the janitors, visitors, everyone. The school I taught at knew everyone on campus, at all times, teachers wore ID, staff wore ID, visitors, (including parents) needed to identify themselves at the front desk and get a temporary ID badge to gain access. They then wore that badge at all times.

So, unless I register at the front desk and show a reason for being there, I can't get access, nor can you, even if your child is a student. So the same rules apply to both of us, the fact you have children doesn't give you any more rights to unfettered access than I.

[China_cat]

94. I can, I have and our schools encourage

both parents and other adults to come visit the school and have lunch in the cafeteria.

[northzax]

41. excellent plan

in order to be admitted to city playgrounds, everyone should be required to submit to the same fingerprinting and background check that public schools are supposed to use. After passing, you must register your children with the Parks department where they, and you, will be issued bar coded bracelets. the bar codes must be scanned upon entrance to a public playground, you may enter with your children, the guard will have access to their information, via the barcode scanner. the bracelets will also be scanned upon exiting the park. If you want to have another child with you, the parent or legal guardian must register you, with your barcode information, as a legal escort for that child, before you can enter. You must reregister your information, including updated photographs, every six months. the playground is a public good, paid for by the city, no problem. the security measures are registration based, every adult costs $50 every 6 months, every child $20 every six months. You can then let them play to their heart's content.

there, perfectly safe.

[MalibuChloe]

249. You're right - adults should be banned from all places...

that children frequent. Teachers should be children and only children should be allowed to be parents. No adults should be permitted near children because they should be assumed to be pedophiles.

:eyes:

[JimmyJazz]

344. Yeah - that's exactly what I said.

Way to misinterpret and exaggerate. :eyes:

[redqueen]

349. It's easier to mischaracterize than have a serious discussion.

The right's been doing it for decades. Guess it's catching.

[CanuckAmok]

85. okay, then. As a parent, would you be willing to pay higher taxes for...

...having greater access to public property?

Didn't think so.

[JimmyJazz]

97. I have no idea what you are saying.

[CanuckAmok]

122. Okay...

You and I are equal New York citizens, for the sake of argument.

You and I pay the same taxes for public services, which include parks and playgrounds.

But I am prohibited from using 10% of those parks and playgrounds, because I don't have children.

Shouldn't I pay 10% less to support these public services? I already pay the same amount as you to support the public education system, which your family will use more than mine, and I don't grouse about that. So don't I deserve a rebate for being prohibited from using some public facilities.


Here's another scenario:

Let's say, again for the sake of argument, that somehow it's proven that all pedophiles are Korean.

That doesn't mean all Koreans are pedophiles.

But imagine if a law was passed, based on the proven statistic that all pedophiles are Korean, that all Koreans were banned from public playgrounds and some parks.

Asx a liberal, as a person who stands for equality and fairness, would you stand for that?


Plus, this whole law is based on the assumption that single, childless people are the predominant statistic of pedophiles. So do parents never diddle their kids or other kids? How about other children? Don't they also occasionally display abnormal pedophilia? What if a 12 year old boy sat alone in the playground? Would he be arrested? Because, technically, he could also be a pedophile.

[Midlodemocrat]

169. Well, here is a similar situation.

I pay $110 per month for the use of the community pool/tennis courts. Every hour for fifteen minutes, my nine year old has to get out of the pool for 'adult swim'. I don't use the pool, so my family is only getting 75% usage out of the pool.

You don't hear any adults, except me, complaining about that.

[redqueen]

191. Seriously?

You complain about that?

[Midlodemocrat]

205. Of course!!! Why should I be paying 100% of the fee

and only getting 75% usage? Does that seem fair?

[redqueen]

206. Oy.

I guess we need to pro-rate every single thing people pay for.

No, I don't think that's a big deal, either.

[Midlodemocrat]

208. LOL. I have an issue with adults who think that their

relaxation at a pool for which we all pay the same amount allows them to co-opt said pool for 25% of the time. I wouldn't have an issue if one of the other pools were adults only, but seriously, why would you move into a family type neighborhood and join a family type pool and expect the kids to turn over the pool to you 25% of the time? I don't think that is realistic.

The club has lots of adult only activities, including many during the day when the kids are in school, so I don't understand why some of these adults have an issue with the kids being in the pool with them.

[Doris32r]

324. I don't care about your child

What if I have a sack lunch and decide to go sit outside in the nearest park and enjoy my lunch? And the closest park happens to be a playground? It does have a bench and trees, yes? Then of course I should be allowed to sit there and enjoy the outdoors. You want security, then go play in your own backyard. If you don't have a backyard then you have to share the public park.

[JimmyJazz]

338. You don't care about my child? That's fucking cold.

[tjwmason]

345. What a charming attitude.

Rephrased a tad "I couldn't care less whether your child get killed, abducted &c. - just as long as I can sit anywhere I want to eat my lunch". :puke:

What if whilst you're eating your lunch you start to choke - do I as a bystander sit there saying that it's none of my business, or I do assist a fellow human?

Civilisation means that we compromise on what we all want to do to improve matters for everybody. It means acknowledging that we are all bound together in a society, and that we all care for everybody else within that society.

[redqueen]

347. "I don't care about your child"

Are you sure you're in the right place?

You can't be bothered to find a PARK not a PLAYGROUND?

Nice attitude. I'd say welcome to DU but I would be putting on an act.

That's one of THE SHITTIEST THINGS I've ever read on here.

:puke:

I'd use the flippy smiley but he's smiling, and I wouldn't be.

[Lavender Brown]

348. The playgrounds are separate from the parks, which far outnumber them

in this city. You'd really be going out of your way to sit in a playground as opposed to a public park here. They're just trying to address a problem, as ineffective as this rule is in actually preventing it. It's not just a random "fuck you, childless people" from NYC.

[Book Lover]

72. In NYC

we have an expectation that every park is open to us at all times. What park isn't going to have kids in it, especially in Manhattan? Why should the woman who got arrested have an expectation that it was kids-and-their-adults-only? Yes, it is my right as a taxpaying New Yorker (and we pay payroll-deducted city tax, too, not just state and fed) to sit in any fucking park I find!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

78. She should have had the expectation

Seeing as all the playgrounds like that have signs on the gate indicating that adults are not allowed inside unless they are accompanying children.

[NMMNG]

33. Well then, maybe childless adults shouldn't have their tax dollars used

for these parks if they can't use them.

Stupid freaking laws. :grr:

[JimmyJazz]

40. Your tax dollars go to pay for public schools, too.

:)

[northzax]

44. education of children is a well founded public good

publically funded playgrounds aren't.

[JimmyJazz]

47. public schools have playgrounds, too, Therefore, aren't they

by definition "public" - again, pack up your lunch and head down there. See if anyone notices.

[kick-ass-bob]

90. actually, here in NC, school playgrounds are off limits to anyone

after school hours. It is part of the school and no one (not even students) are allowed on the premises after hours unless there is a school sponsored activity. (Insurance purposes)

[JimmyJazz]

102. I didn't say after school. I meant while the kids are playing on the

playground equipment. It's public property.

[kick-ass-bob]

110. You need to slow down a little bit.

If it is "school property" then they treat it just like they do the inside of a school: No unauthorized access to those without business at the school, and no access at all after hours.

That is how it's different.

[JimmyJazz]

113. But, it's still your tax dollars at work and, according to everyone here,

if your tax dollars paid for it, you should have access to it.

[kick-ass-bob]

138. well, I don't agree with that.

And I know others in here do not either, even ones that don't agree completely with you.

:hi:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

52. So kids should have to sit at home all day?

And never get to enjoy the outside if their parents' schedules don't allow for it?

I would argue just as strongly that public parks and rec areas are a "well founded public good".

Would you live in a city with no parks or greenery?

[northzax]

55. children are not allowed in public playgrounds without an adult

so yes, under the current rules, sorry. You want to keep your children perfectly safe, should we ban any adult from being anywhere where children might be?

would you let your children walk to the park alone? then it doesn't do any good to ban people from the park, they are more at risk on the sidewalk getting there. Society is not your babysitter, you are responsible for your children, not me.

[JimmyJazz]

58. My children don't walk to a park alone, but even when they are

there with me, it is impossible to keep my eye on them 100% of the time.

[northzax]

73. if you're that paranoid

then you need to control your children better. You need to teach them to stay within your eyesight at all times, or bring another trusted adult along to help you watch them. The fact that you can't keep an eye on your children at all times is not my problem, it's yours. sorry about that. I don't know, I spent a lot of time as a kid without adults around, I was taught, at a very young age, to not listen to any stranger outside (except policemen) when I was alone. My parents and I had a password, if an adult didn't know it, I didn't talk to them. Somehow I survived. If your children aren't old enough, or responsible enough, to do that, and you are scared for them, they need to never be out of your sight, or that of a responsible adult you trust, at any time.

[Shell Beau]

105. I don't know any parents that aren't paranoid

about things that could happen to their kids. I think that is part of parenting!

[northzax]

116. indeed, and I have said, many times

on this thread that it is understandable and a good thing for parents to be watchful. and being scared is just part of the responsibility. doesn't mean that other people's rights can be restricted to make it easier on the parents.

[Shell Beau]

124. I understand that! I think the law is absurd!

I think there is good intent behind the law, but it is wrong!

[northzax]

126. a remarkably high percentage of bad laws

have good intentions behind them. something about the road to hell and paving comes to mind!

[Shell Beau]

128. Yep I hear ya!

I understand though why parents would like this law, but we have to think outside the box. Look at the bigger picture! JMO!

[northzax]

133. you really have to stop being so logical about things

this is the lounge and you're ruining everyone's fun! :)

[JimmyJazz]

180. But, what if it wasn't a single woman who was arrested.

What if it were fifteen members of a gang? Would you be so quick to say this is bad law?

[Shell Beau]

184. Yeah if they weren't doing anything illegal!

If they were, then they would be arrested for the crime they committed.

[JimmyJazz]

188. So, a parent is in a playground with their children when 12 or so

people enter wearing gang colors. They aren't doing anything wrong, but are just sitting there staring at the kids. And, you think parents and police should just sit there and wait for something to happen?

[Shell Beau]

193. What about at a regular park? The same applies. They

have just as much right to be there as anyone else. I don't like gang members to be around, but that is their right. As long as they aren't doing anything illegal, then there is nothing you can do.

[JimmyJazz]

201. That's the whole argument. This isn't a regular park.

If it were, I'd be on your side.

[Shell Beau]

203. I see your point JJ, but I just think this is going to lead

to bad things. It already has. Look at the poor woman who was arrested and is now a "sex offender". Those words should be saved for the scum of the earth. How many more people are going to get that label? What if you were the woman who innocently was sitting at a park? Now your life is ruined.

[JimmyJazz]

121. Why is this so hard for you to believe:

Kids are fast. It's easy to lose sight of them on occassion. There are large non-transparent playground equipment in a playground. There are tunnels and rock climbing walls and other toys to obstruct ones view. It is impossible to keep an eye on two small children every second of being in a park and, for some people, a park is the ONLY place they have to take their kids for outdoor recreation/exercise. This is New York City - people don't have fenced in back yards. A park with a fence that does not allow adults is the next best thing.

And please STOP lecturing me on ways to keep my children safe. I am well aware of all the techniques used - it's starting to sound as if you are being condescending.

[northzax]

131. I'm simply pointing out ways

to keep your children safe without restricting the rights of other, completely innocent, citizens. you are free to prejudge people as criminals without evidence, the City of New York is not.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

75. Minors are not allowed in parks without an adult?

Is this federal law? Or a NYC municipal law?

I used to go to the park all the time when I was in junior high and high school. In fact, I worked in a park from 15-17. That was illegal?

Regardless, you're side-stepping my point. My point was that public parks are a "well founded public good." You don't think so?

(Btw, I don't have any kids so I'm not trying to put any sort of burden on you.)

[northzax]

96. there is no mandate

for parks, no. Although I think there should be. And there is a quantifiable difference between greenspaces, avaliable to everyone, and playgrounds. And yes, in fenced off playgrounds, there is generally a notice that children must be supervised by an adult.

[NMMNG]

129. I know. They also go to pay for WIC, AFDC and other such things

I will never have children yet I pay for lots of child related things all of the time. Maybe I should protest. ;-)

[northzax]

140. one other difference

you are required to send your children to school of some sort (whether public, private or home schooled) so there is a higher burden on the state to provide security for something that is mandated. There is no mandate that you have to take them to a park, so there is a lower mandate for security there.

[LoZoccolo]

34. I don't disagree with the rule, but I do disagree with the cops.

I think for some limited specially-designated places for kids to play like playgrounds, I don't really think the rule is a big deal as far as infringement of public space. Now of course I don't know what transpired between the arrested woman and the police, but I would think a simple warning to leave would have sufficed. I imagine the profession attracts people with authoritarian personalities who will fine and jail you for percieved disrespect of the rules regardless of any lack of social harm due to your actions.

[redqueen]

195. Yay!

Glad to see there's more than 3 people who think this just is not that big of a deal.

[Der Blaue Engel]

248. There are five of us

:D

[redqueen]

254. Woohoo!

:party:

[Jara sang]

38. I'll stop going to parks.

When children stop disrupting my meals in restaurants.

[matcom]

42. .

:applause:

[northzax]

46. restaurants are private property

it's more important to me that areas of parks be set aside for adults, I want to sit there and read a book under a tree without screaming kids around. No adults in playgrounds, fine. no kids in the rest of the park.

[JimmyJazz]

49. My children have never disrupted you or anyone else in a restaurant.

[northzax]

53. and I have never molested anyone

but I'm banned from the playgrounds. see?

[JimmyJazz]

59. I don't know that when I see you sitting on a park bench within

easy reach of my children, now do I? Why is giving me a little peace of mind such a difficult concept?

[Jara sang]

65. If you are so paranoid about child molesters,

don't let your kids have contact with anybody. They could be attacked anywhere. Restricting my rights is not going to help you out at all.

[JimmyJazz]

71. Paranoid? Have your READ the statistics?

I have to do everything I can to keep them safe. It is my sacred duty to do that and if a goddamned fence and a no admittance sign can give me a leg up on that, then your rights can be a little restricted - it's not going to kill you not to be able to eat your lunch in a playground.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shell Beau]

89. Come on!! There is no need to go there with this!!

This discussion can stay civil!!

[JimmyJazz]

98. Thanks.

:)

[Shell Beau]

100. Anytime!! It was an unfair comment!

:)

[Jara sang]

109. JJ brought it up.

I believe term is "practice what you preach"

[Shell Beau]

115. That was an unfair comment. This

shouldn't turn into personal attacks. Which I think that comment was leading to! JMO!! :shrug:

[JimmyJazz]

130. Do not accuse me of being a bad parent. Shell Beau is right.

Stop making it personal.

[Jara sang]

139. I did not make it personal, you did.

When you started drawing on your own experiences with your children to make your argument.

[kick-ass-bob]

141. If you like stretching the truth

so thin that you can't tell it is there

then yes.

[Jara sang]

145. Sorry, are you responding to my post?

I don't quite follow you. Please elaborate.

[Shell Beau]

148. The point is, she is bringing up

her experiences as a parent and how she feels about this law b/c that is what she has to go on. Her parental experiences help form her opinion on this. But when you turn it around and say that she is a bad parent (or at least imply) b/c she does whatever, then you are making it personal. That is her business. No one appreciates being called a bad parent. I think the way she is arguing her point shows that she is a wonderful parent! She has her kids best interest at heart. You shouldn't have went there.

[Jara sang]

156. Damn, what is this a witch hunt?

I never said that she was a bad parent.

[Shell Beau]

159. I know, but it was implied in a way.

It is not a witch hunt. I am on the same side of the issue as you. But using that to help prove your point wasn't fair. It was kind of a low blow. I am not mad at you, but I don't think you should have gone there to help your case. Again JMO!!

On edit, you should have took into consideration how that would make JJ feel for you to say that.

:hug: <---- For you and JJ!!

[Jara sang]

163. I'm going to back pedal a little bit on this.

OK, OK, wait... I "implied" that she was a bad parent? Isn't she implying that all single males who happen to be in the vicinity of parks might be child molesters? But I guess, it's O.K. for her and all... because she's a parent... :eyes:

[Shell Beau]

164. Come on!! She said for the safety of her children,

she will assume anyone is dangerous that she doesn't know. Why are you reaching so far out there?

[kick-ass-bob]

165. no, she is saying that there is the possibility that they are

and she isn't taking the risk of assuming they aren't.

I wouldn't either.

And I still think the law is hooey.

[Shell Beau]

167. That is what I meant!!!

:P And I am with her on that!

And the law is hooey!! ;)

edit, oops I thought you were talking to me, but you were replying to the post as I!! Oops!!!!! :silly:

[JimmyJazz]

171. Actually, I do make that assumption.

Why shouldn't I? I'd rather assume you are a potential child molester and be wrong than assume that you aren't one and be wrong.

[Jara sang]

179. well then, I would rather you be a shut-in

before you go around stomping all over my rights.

[JimmyJazz]

181. Who is stomping on your rights? I'm allowed to think whatever

I want about whomever I want. Your rights have nothing to do with my thought process.

[kick-ass-bob]

149. you took a point to a far out extreme "that she made it personal

by introducing her kids" into this equation, and then you run to posting pics on the internet.

That is stretching it.

that's all.

[northzax]

153. hell, I agree with your points

and still think you went too far. A discussion about the merits of a law banning certain people from certain places does not have anything to do with the posting of pictures of children on a message board. the fact that it is difficult to watch children at a playground, something we all can agree on, has no relevance to a picture thread, or the ability of a parent to keep their child safe in any other capacity.

heck, even if JJ constantly beat her children with an iron rod, (extreme example posted for effect, not something I have any reason to suspect, full disclosure) that would still be irrelevant to the issue at hand.

bringing up information from other threads not relevant to the subject at hand is making the discussion personal and not really conducive to practical discussions.

[JimmyJazz]

147. Thanks, Bob - I know we aren't agreeing on this, but I appreciate

you knowing a personal attack when you see one. ;)

[kick-ass-bob]

150. I hate not agreeing with you!!

:cry:

:P

[Shell Beau]

151. Me too! Even though we are on different sides of the issue,

I won't let anyone attack her parenting! That is wrong! :cry:

[JimmyJazz]

162. It's okay. We would be on the same page if this was actually

a park, but I am differenting between a park and a city playground. I've seen these playgrounds and I can't imagine why anyone would fuss about not being allowed in. And, often times, these playgrounds are surrounded by parks (although I don't know for sure in this case) making even less of a reason for someone without children to want to enter.

[Jara sang]

168. Who decides?

What about the old man in his late seventies who just lost his grandchild and wants to be around the sound of childrens laughter at that particular park? Is he OK? Does he meet with your approval? I guess that quadriplegic dude would be OK too. He can't harm anybody right? Who is going to decide who is a child molester and who is not?

[JimmyJazz]

177. And what if it's ten or twelve members of a gang?

Without an ordinance, there would be no way to ask them to leave.

[northzax]

207. what if, oh my god, they were Black or something?

could you imagine? you're not a racist, you would never say that, I know, but it is just as arbitrary.

that's how absurd it is.

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jara sang]

160. It wasn't a personal attack.

You seemed rather adamant about your position, you were drawing on your personal experiences to make your point, I was merely drawing on my personal experiences with you to make my point.

[JimmyJazz]

93. You are making this personal and I won't stand for it.

[northzax]

88. the statistics clearly say

that your child is much more likely to be molested by someone you know than a stranger. The statistics say your child is much more likely to be molested by a parent than a stranger. By a babysitter, or another child, or a trusted adult, or a minister, than by a stranger. you child is much more likely to be killed in a car accident than by a stranger, more likely to fall from the playground and break his or her arm than by a stranger. more likely to die in a fire in your house, than by being kidnapped.

there is only so far you can reduce risk, it's a big scary world, and pre-emption of other people's rights to expand yours reminds me a lot of the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, our right to peace of mind outweighed the rights of Iraq to exist. That's where this leads.

[Starlight]

91. Statistically, there is an almost zero chance of your child being abducted

by a stranger. Almost no chance at all. :eyes:

[Telly Savalas]

300. This is somewhat anecdotal...

but in the 3.5 years I've lived in the Greater Toronto Area (population around 5 million), there have been only 2 stranger abductions of children that I know of. In one case, the girl was walking on a sidewalk in her neighbourhood, in the other the victim was taken from her home at night.

There's a lot of eyes and ears in a playground. It may be an attractive spot for a predator because of the presence of kids, but there's typically enough adult supervision in such an environment to make it unfeasible for such a monster to try to pull any shit.

You may lose track of your kids for a few seconds, but other adults present will be alert if things don't feel right. (If they have the slightest sense of community spirit, that is.)

[Rabrrrrrr]

303. Well, hey, did it kill any black people to have to sit on the back of

the bus? Did it kill any black people to have segregated drinking fountains?

[northzax]

66. because it eliminates my freedom

your freedom to piece of mind ends the minute it stops me from doing something completely harmless.

and I don't know your children aren't going in interrupt my dinner when you walk in, or that the vaguely threatening guy on the bus isn't going to mug me, but I can't stop that.

[JimmyJazz]

69. You are honestly comparing an interruption of your dinner to

child molestation? Seriously?

[northzax]

111. no, because restaurants are private property

and can restrict children, if they want.

and you are talking about the potential for molestation. you are typecasting all adults as potential molesters of children, which is a good thing from the perspective of a parent, you should be careful. But the very low potential for any individual to be a child abuser cannot be used to restrict my rights. You are right to keep an eye on me, I'd do the same thing (and do when I babysit for friends by taking their kids to the park) but in that case it is my responsibilty to make sure I watch them at all times. When I take them to the pool, even though there is a lifeguard there, it's my job to take care of them, not depend on an arbitrary rule to protect them.

It's tough, no doubt, but such are the responsibilities of child rearing, I'm only glad I only have them a couple of hours every week or two, not 24-7.

[Misunderestimator]

155. Do you think it's ok to not allow me to sit in a park among your children?

I don't think I want to live in a country that tells me which areas of the public are open to childless little me. :shrug:

Yes, public parks can be dangerous for children, and probably do attract predators... we should do more to protect children, in ways that would actually protect them, like providing guards to the parks, or establishing some sort of group like a Neighborhood Watch group. To BAN people who do not come in with a child in tow is idiotic and short-sighted. Many child molestors do have children (or grandchildren, or nieces or nephews) of their own you know.

[JimmyJazz]

170. It's not a park, it's a playground and there is a difference.

And, it's in New York City, perhaps this is the only place these children have to play. These areas are typically small with not much space for anything other than the equipment.

Why is it so important to someone to sit in one of these playgrounds when a public park is accessible to them? I do understand how you can see it as a violation of your rights, but I'm telling you, as someone who has been there, that it is impossible to watch a child at all times who is playing on this type of equipment.

And, if lots of people (men and women) were sitting around the playground because they felt like it, it makes my job, as a parent, that much more difficult because now I have to keep an eye on all these other adults to make sure they aren't acting suspiciously and watch my kids at the same time.

Quite frankly, I would leave before I did that. So now, lots of people are sitting in a playground because they are exercising their right to do so and my kids are stuck in a city apartment because it may or may not be safe for them to play in a playground specifically designed for their enjoyment.

[Misunderestimator]

173. I lived in Manhattan for 10 years... and I have sat in those playgrounds

many times before. I think that we should be concerned and guard those playgrounds, absolutely. I wouldn't mind my tax dollars (that I already donate to educate the same kids I don't have myself) to protect them in those playgrounds. But to tell me I cannot go in there and risk ARREST if I do... no... that's where the line NEEDS to be drawn.

In the end, parents ARE responsible for their children. If our government is incapable of maintaining peace in our society and making it a safe place for our children, lets deal with that problem, instead of putting bandaids that make no sense on it.

[JimmyJazz]

175. The story isn't clear. I got the impression that they asked her to leave

the park and she refused and was issued a summons. If they just slapped her with a ticket, then I would agree.

I just don't see the harm of having designated areas for these kids. BTW - I tried desperately to find this place on the map, and it appears to be somewhere in the Bowery. I don't know what that means, but if it is in a bad neighborhood, then I think it's a good ordinance.

Again, even though this time, it was a lone woman (who should have only been warned), what if it were 12 or so gang members? Without an ordinance, the police would have no way to legally remove them.

[Blue-Jay]

189. Why do you keep bringing up gang members.

Strawman.

Listen - During the summer, I sometimes walk down to Crown Fountain to have my lunch. It's scenic, and a good place to sit and read or do whatever. I also get a kick out of watching all the kids splash around in the water, and on occasion, I take my shoes off and have a splash as well. Should I get a ticket for doing that? Should I be run off by the cops?

[JimmyJazz]

196. That's an open area, not a playground.

And, now I have to pick up my kids from school.

[Kire]

295. you don't know either way

[Rabrrrrrr]

302. And when I see someone come into a restaurant with kids,

I don't know that they're not gonna be screaming and raising a ruckus.

I think judging someone guilty by association is assinine.

If we can keep childless people out of playgrounds just because they might be a pedophile (which is so rare as to be laughable), then we can keep children out of restaurants because they might be loud, and we can keep black people out of libraries because they might play their iPod loud enough for everyone to hear, and we can keep women out of sporting goods stores because they might drop an expensive scope, and we can keep men out of women's clothing stores because they might have a bra fetish, and we can keep teenagers out of malls because they might paint graffiti...


See, this is all insanely assinine. "Person A" can't do something, because "Person B" is afraid that "People like Person A" might pose a threat.

Fuck that.

If it's a public park (whether you want to go through the bullshit semantics of calling it a "playground" or a "play area", it's still a "public park"), then EVERYONE gets to be in it.

My God, when I was in NYC in July, I sat in one of the dog run areas at Union Square and..... E-FUCKING-GADS!.... I HAD NO DOG WITH ME! I might have been a dog thief! Or a dog rapist!

[Doris32r]

325. Because you are not special.

The world does not revolve around you because you have a child.

[JimmyJazz]

328. nor does it revolve around you because you don't.

My children are denied access to all sorts of places because of their age. You don't hear me screaming about their "rights"

The entire argument on this thread is ridiculous. It basically boils down to "you are soley responsible for the safety of your children, but you are paranoid because you take that responsibility too seriously." :eyes:

[JVS]

194. Good one

:popcorn:

[redqueen]

197. Not "parks"... playgrounds.

And I'm sure you're well aware you can go out to eat at many places and not have to be put upon by the presence of any children.

[Pithlet]

223. I'm not defending the law, but that is stupid.

Both children and adults have a reason to attend a restaurant. An adult without a child really doesn't have a reason to be at a playground. While I think upholding the law to the point of fines and prison time is ludicrous, I think it is equally so that some of the childfreers in this thread are indignant about not being allowed in a frigging playground. I can't believe that anyone who loathes children to the point that they don't want to see them in restaurants is all that put out about being banned from a playground. Sorry.

If I have this right, then it's "Please don't bring your spawn to restaurants because they bug me, but don't complain if I creep you out by hanging out at playgrounds because it's my right to be there"?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

48. I live in NYC and I have no problem with this

There are three "public" outdoor spaces in my neighborhood. 2 of them are normal parks. One is filled exculsively with children's rec equipment (swings, jungle gyms, etc.) and is completely fenced off. It also has a sign posted on the gate saying that adults are not allowed in without children.

And I have absolutely no problem with that. If I'm going to the park to relax, I'm going to one of the actual parks anyways, not the kiddie play area.

If the law prevents even one child in NYC from being abused or kidnapped (or worse), it's quite all right by me and is a fine use of my tax monies.

[JimmyJazz]

50. You said what I'm thinking only WAY better.

:)

[Jara sang]

70. Alright, what next?

allowing government to do this is just so wrong on so many levels. Suppose, I glance at you and decide that you might be a child molester? The fact that you don't have children is predilection to you probably a child molester? Puhh-lease.

[Telly Savalas]

301. Can we quit with the slippery slope arguments?

I agree with your stance that it's not a good law, but the slippery slope is a really irritating rhetorical device. It sidetracks the issue at hand and refocuses the debate on circumstances that'll never happen.

"You give the government power to tax its citizens? Then what next? You give them the power to extract people's kidneys?"

"They pass an ordinance against public urination! It's an outrage. Will this control of our excretory functions stop? Next thing you know, they'll try to ban all urination!!!"

[redqueen]

108. NOOOOOOOOOO It's an OUTRAGE!

:sarcasm:

[Blue-Jay]

190. Getting a ticket for minding your own business

just because you happen to be in the vicinity of children IS an outrage.

[redqueen]

192. See, that right there is what's called an opinion.

Sorry, I just don't share it.

[Blue-Jay]

214. See, what you just did is called condescension.

It is certainly NOT my opinion that I should have the freedom to sit on a park bench during lunch without being hassled by anyone.

[redqueen]

219. It's your opinion that the rule is unfair.

It's my opinion that it's not.

Condescension? Sorry... not how I meant it. It's just that some on this thread are acting as if GOD came down and told them to DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF PLAYGROUND-ATTENDING CHILDLESS ADULTS and it's more than a bit pathetic.

[Lavender Brown]

157. The fine and the possibility of being put on a list is way excessive IMO,

but I agree. The number of regular parks and sitting areas in NYC far exceeds the number of parks specifically devoted to children. I don't see why there should be such an uproar that this rule would be put in place.

[redqueen]

200. I think we can all agree the punishments are too severe.

About the rule itself, though...

[Shell Beau]

54. What if the law were reversed?

People with children can't be allowed on public property where adults go to relax.

This law may make sense to keep away pedophiles, but look at the bigger picture. It isn't a fair law, nor is it right. And trust me, pedophiles will find a way.

[JimmyJazz]

57. Why do you feel such a compelling need to go sit on a bench

near a playground? Doesn't the safety of the children and the peace of mind of the parent allow you to think, "hey, I'm sorry that they need this in this day and age, but if it makes them safer, then who am I to complain?"

[Shell Beau]

60. Of course I want safety for the children first and foremost. But

I honestly don't think that is the answer. I personally wouldn't feel compelled to go sit on a bench and watch kids play. But I don't like where laws like this could take us.

[El Fuego]

61. My world doesn't revolve around other people's kids.

Parents have a responsiblity to look after their own kids.

[Shell Beau]

64. I can say that I think we all have

some responsibility to children. Of course they are their parents responsibility. But we as a society should always have the children's best interest at heart. I just don't think that this law is necessarily the answer.

[Starlight]

62. Why do you assume adults only want to sit on a bench & read?

I like to play on the swings & slides, too. Now I have to drag some little brat with me? :wtf:

[hfojvt]

144. I feel a compelling need to not be disciminated against

for arbitrary reasons. I have been in many parks as a stranger to the town, either walking my dogs, using their facilities or just getting off the road and out of the sun for a while. Usually they have playground equipment and kids. Other than school playgrounds, I have never seen a fenced park. I doubt if I would feel safe in a city or a society that felt the need to fence its parks.

[-..__...]

56. The response I posted in GD on this subject...

The city should play both sides of the fence and for every park where an adult must be accompanied by a child, designate another park where children aren't allowed.

Then watch the howls and headlines commence.

The woman should play tit-for-tat and sue the city for unlawful discrimination practices.

[matcom]

63. wonder if the woman will be registered as a sex offender now

if convicted :eyes:

[China_cat]

81. yes

[Shell Beau]

86. That really blows my mind!

Poor woman (unless of course it is true)!!! Now labled a sex offender for going to a public park that has children!!!!!

[JimmyJazz]

101. That's just wrong. She should not be registered as a sex offender!

[Beware the Beast Man]

68. That's just dumb.

Dumb dumb dumb.

[StopTheMorans]

i'd like to add "Fucking Stupid"

:thumbsdown:

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shell Beau]

80. No, but this isn't the place to start a discussion about that.

You need to start a thread about that if you want to discuss it!

[CanuckAmok]

77. This was in LBN yesterday.

Such crap. But, as many others here say, It's easier to enact a law discriminating against people without kids than to, oh, I dunno, be responsible for your own children's safety.

It's "public park", not "parent's park".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

87. It is not a public park

It is a playground. As in Rivington Playground -- the actual name of the place she was arrested. A playground designated specifically for use by children.

[Shell Beau]

92. Was it funded privately or by tax dollars that we the public paid?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

103. It is funded by tax dollars

That's not the part that I was referring to.

My point was that this area -- Rivington Playground -- and the other areas designated like it are not parks. They are playgrounds for children.

HOV lanes on the interstate are also funded by tax dollars, but it's illegal to drive on them if you're by yourself. Everyone going to get all up in arms about that cause they're funded by tax money?

Should I have had the right to enter the Teacher's Lounge at my school growing up because it was funded by tax payer's money? Or the judge's chambers next time I'm at court? (I work for a law firm, btw, not a raging criminal.) Or just be allowed to go wondering around the Pentagon? Or the DOT? Or a prison? All of these areas are off limits to certain members of the public, yet are funded by taxpayers. Where's the outrage there?

You'd think people wouldn't mind the creation of tiny (most of the areas like this by me are about 300 sq. ft. at most) little sanctuaries for children.

[Shell Beau]

107. I don't like where laws like this can lead.

Now the woman will be labled as a sex offender. That is outrageous!!! See, I don't like where laws like this can lead.

[redqueen]

114. Holy shit! Logical thought processes!

:o

[Shell Beau]

120. Others here have posted logical things as well.

Just b/c some don't see eye to eye on an issue doesn't mean they are illogical!

[-..__...]

134. The difference is that no children/no adults is a discriminatory practice

against childless couples or single adults and it's being paid for with taxpayer $$$$.

If the situation was reversed and there were outdoor public areas for
adults only and children were prohibited from, what would the public reaction be?

I could easily see a need or desire for public greenspace where people can go sit and relax and not be annoyed by having a bunch of screaming kids running around.

[Pithlet]

250. Not always

Is it discriminatory that you aren't allowed in a public school during school hours unless you have a legitimate reason to be there? Is it discriminatory to not allow you to be a student there? Is it discriminatory to only allow disabled people to park in a handicapped space? Is it discriminatory to not allow me into a hospital unless I have a legitimate reason to be there?

Restricting a place or a thing to the group for which it is intended is not automatically discriminatory. If enough adults who wish to go to playgrounds petitioned it, I'm sure an adult only playground could be managed. I just don't see that happening, but I would have nothing against such an adult only, or mixed children/adults playground. Just as I don't have a problem with a child only playground.

[CanuckAmok]

106. okay, then. thanks for the clarification.

So I assume, then, that the City of New York meticulously examines the tax base to ensure that no childless adults' taxes are used to support this and other playgrounds?

This is another example of how the childless are marginalised and discriminated against. In this case, guilty of sex crimes because of where they choose to sit.

So, ultimately, I guess anyone who is childless and has a view of a playground and buys binoculars should ultimately be arrested, too, because they might use them to observe playgrounds from their apartments.

It's nuts. Here's an idea: be responsible for your kids' safety. If it takes more than one person to watch your children, have a friend/partner help you. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't have children. But I suppose your right to be a negligent parent superscedes my right to sit in a public place and do whatever (legal) thing I please.

[JimmyJazz]

269. Look. I know this is difficult for you to understand because you don't

have children, but this is a picture of typical playground equipment:



Please take note: It isn't translucent. It's damned near impossible not to lose sight of a child while they are playing for let's say 35 seconds at a time (the same amount of time it would take a predator to abduct a child). Now, put that same equipment in an inner city where crime rates are higher than in the suburbs. People have found it effective to put a fence around the same playground and have ordinances in an effort to protect children.

No offense, but my tax dollars also go toward the upkeep and maintenance of the pentagon and you don't hear me complaining because I don't have access to it.

I know single people feel marginalized for various reasons. This shouldn't be one of them.

On edit: I'm really tired of the argument that bad parenting is the cause of the problem. Were you ever lost in a supermarket or store? Was it because of bad parenting? I didn't think so.

[CanuckAmok]

280. Were you with your children when you took that photo?

Because I think taking (or downloading) photos of playground equipment is indicitave of pederastic behaviour. Although, as a parent, you're probably above reproach. But just to be safe, I think I'll call the cops on you.

This issue isn't difficult for me to understand, despite my overwhelming handicap of not having children; I clearly understand both sides of the issue, and I remain firm on my educated opinion: your child's rights are not greater than my own.

Period.

[JimmyJazz]

281. I never claimed parents are automatically above reproach.

I'm more than well aware of the statistics on the subject. But, go ahead and call the cops on me.

By the way, when was the last time you were actually overcome by the great desire to swing on a monkey bar? Probably years ago. So what you are doing is posturing in the name of "your rights."

So, the bottom line is your right to swing on a monkey bar should not supercede or even be equal to my child's right to have a safe area in which to play - or at least as safe as can be provided.

[CanuckAmok]

283. Your child's safety is your responsibility.

Not society's.

That's not fair, but that's reality.

And, yes, that's exactly whatr I'm saying. Equality for all, not for some. It's the cornerstone of liberalism.

[JimmyJazz]

286. According to that line of reasoning, we should abolish any and all

laws designed to protect children because, after all, it's the parent's responsibility to protect them.

[China_cat]

79. I first heard about this law almost 3 years ago

If she's convicted, no matter what she gets...90 days or $1000...she'll also be listed on the sex offender list.

I couldn't believe when I first heard about it that anyone could condone or apologize for such nonsense but I had to leave a list I was on because people were saying that if you didn't have kids you had no right to be in the park and you MUST be a pedophile if you wanted to be there.

[Shell Beau]

83. The sex offender's list? Are you serious?

That is bullshit!!! Comeplete and utter bullshit!!!!! :mad:

[China_cat]

117. Unfortunately, yes

Like many others, I can't for the life of me understand why the cops didn't point out the sign and ask her to leave. Not to mention that the chance of her being a female pedophile is almost nil. One out of 1000 pedophiles is a woman.

[Shell Beau]

123. I feel really sorry for that woman!

How terrible!

[redqueen]

119. That's the ONLY part of this issue that's worth bitching about.

All this other whinging is just fuckin sad.

[Shell Beau]

127. No it isn't! See the negative that has already come of this

law!! A woman is now labeled a sex offender for ABSOLUTELY nothing!!! This is just the beginning. Not to mention where else laws like this will restrict us from going!

[redqueen]

135. That's kinda what I was saying...

bullshit stuff like that is the negative.

Restrictions in and of themselves are normal and acceptable, and, dare I say, helpful and even sometimes necessary.

[Shell Beau]

143. But will it be worth the negative that comes out of it?

I understand why parents would like this law. I think we all have children's safety on our minds and want to keep kids safe. But what about all of the negatives that come out of this. Sure if one kid is saved, that will be wonderful and seem to make this law worth it. But what if 20, 40, even 50 people are innocently labeled as sex offenders? It has already happened to one woman. Is this really the best way to protect the children?

[redqueen]

185. You're not getting me.

I'm saying DON'T label people as sex offenders.

Restricting them from entering the park is fine by me, though.

[Shell Beau]

216. But you obviously can't have it both ways. Ask the

woman who just got arrested!

And at what age do you cut off a kid from going in the park? Technically adulthood (legally) doesn't start until the age of 18. Are 18 year olds allowed in a park w/o kids? Or are they considered teenagers and not kids. 12 years old? Some 13 year olds still like to play at the park. 15? 16? When?

[redqueen]

218. Huh? Sure you can.

Just change the law.

17 seems good to me.

[Shell Beau]

220. So you can have 17 year olds there at the park, but

no adults?

[redqueen]

221. No childless adults.

Yes. That's the rule.

[Shell Beau]

226. Okay!

That will certainly keep your kids safer!!!
:eyes:

[redqueen]

227. Well it'll open up the benches for the parents... who HAVE to be there.

:evilgrin:

[Shell Beau]

228. I guess that is true!

:)

[redqueen]

231. hehe

There's only ONE bench at the playground we frequent... it's so annoy!

[hfojvt]

158. yet we never like new ones when they are applied to us

even in theory. I take that as a good sign that people are outraged about it. It is sorta the reverse of that famous quote "First they took away the rights of the childless and I did not complain because I was not childless. Then ..."

[redqueen]

187. I guess I could as well... IF the outrage

were in proportion to the restriction.

Hair-pulling, cloth-rending outrage about the automatic sex-offender status seems appropriate.

Such antics over not being allowed to sit at a playground, not so much.

[hfojvt]

232. well a few decades ago

people got excited about a law that said a black person must give up their seat to a white person. So why not a little outrage about a law that says a childless person must give up their seat to a parent.

[redqueen]

252. Buses are not playgrounds.

Playgrounds are for children.

[hfojvt]

261. in this country so are buses

and pools and libraries and schools, etc. Thousands of dollars are spent to get children to school in this town, but there is no similar public transportation for adults. There are many vans driving around which say "general public transportation" but they are apparently for senior citizens or disabled people. For me to go 2.5 miles to a store, I am on my own. How is it any different to say 'Playgrounds (or parks, which I thought we were talking about) are for children' and then exclude childless adults. Is that much better or different than saying 'buses are for white people' and then excluding blacks? Adults cannot help being adults any more than blacks can help being black. I have done my share of swinging and climbing too since the age of 20. I thought it was neat in Deutschland when the train I was riding on filled up with children. In America, that would not be thought safe.

[redqueen]

333. It was never about parks - it's about playgrounds.

Yes, it's WAY different than excluding blacks from buses.

It's really disheartening to see this subject being argued with such vehemence.

Fucking playground benches... shit goddamn.

[Pithlet]

234. But how is it an imposition on the childless

if it isn't for them? Playgrounds aren't for adults. They're for children. Just as handicapped spots aren't for the able bodied. A favorite hiking spot of mine once made an entire entrance for handicapped parking only. It meant I had to hike an extra half a mile to get to the waterfalls. I can't even imagine throwing a fit about that, just as I can't imagine throwing a fit about not being allowed on a playground without children. It's for the children, for God's sake.

If too many adults unaccompanied by children are ruining something that's strictly for children, then I don't see why rules changing that are such a horrible thing.

Really, I do think I've changed my mind on this position. When I think of it, I've seen enough public playgrounds ruined by vandalism to justify such rules. And vandalism isn't even the only problem, nor the least of it. Why is it such a problem that a government make something for children and ensure that children continue to enjoy that thing? Like someone else said, there are enough places where children aren't even allowed, and no one thinks that's such an egregious violation of rights?

[hfojvt]

257. I thought it was a park

most of them have playground equipment, and you are talking about excluding childless adults because some of them might be pedophiles and some might be vandals.

A change that means you have to walk a little further is not the same as a change that excludes you. It excludes you from those parking spots, but not from the entire facility.

If there are enough adults who goto the children's park to "ruin" it, then perhaps the government needs to do something so they have somewhere to go as well, but it still sounds to me like "separate but equal".

[Pithlet]

259. No

I'm talking about excluding adults because it's not for them. Not for them. Not for adults. Playgrounds aren't built for adults. They're built for children. Adults generally do not wish to play on the see saw or swing on the swings, do they? Honestly? Is telling an adult that they can't play on the swingset a horrible exclusion?

Most parks do not have playground equipment. In fact, few around here do. But, the ones that do often have signs saying "This area is intended for children under aged 9", or some such horrifying garment rending exclusion.

It is excluding me from that parking spot. The only reason I'm not whaling and gnashing my teeth over it is because I understand the reason why. Just as I understand that swingsets and slides are not a typical adult attraction. I'm not calling for a nationwide ban on all playgrounds from adults. If a municipality does not wish or doesn't see the need to make any rules, then okay.

I just think that the outrage in this thread by *some* of the adults in this thread is disingenuous as a month cannot go by here in the lounge without SOMEONE crying about children at a restaurant. The notion that parents and children should be excluded from the public sphere unless the kids are stepfordian is common, but the notion that a playground should be for children is worthy of a civil rights movement just strikes me as silly.

[hfojvt]

264. the woman in question was sitting on a park bench

just like my man aqualung. She was not excluded from the swings, she was excluded from the park, not a spot in the park, not an attraction in the park, the entire park. It is a big deal to me when someone says to me, or to someone like me, "you can't even watch, no you can't eat, you ain't supposed to be here. The sign said, you got to be accompanying a child to get inside."

[Pithlet]

268. And I've said that her punishment is a gross overreaction

She wasn't excluded from the entire park, just that section of the park. Even so, I think labeling her a sex offender is outragious, and I agree with anyone who thinks so.

There simply isn't anything wrong with "This portion of the park with playground equipment intended for children is restricted to children and their accompnying adults". There just isn't. Those that want to make this some kind of social injustice are overreacting in the extreme. There is nothing wrong with setting aside things for children. It simply isn't discriminatory. Everyone is a child at some point in their life. Childhood/adulthood simply isn't a defining factor through one's entire life. And, it's not as though there aren't plenty of playgrounds that DON'T have those restrictions. It is no more discriminatory then telling a 35 year old he can't attend classes at McKinley Elementary Public School.

[redqueen]

334. Did you even read the fucking article?

"The News' story about a woman ticketed for sitting on a park bench in a Manhattan playground."

Fucksake.

[kick-ass-bob]

99. HEY! You were right!!

:popcorn:

[matcom]

104. my work here is done

:D

100+ already

guess i made up for my 'boring lounge' comment last night ;)

[kick-ass-bob]

118. what do we got coming up next?

I'm hungry.
:popcorn:

[matcom]

137. well, i was thinking of

no wait. the cat/songbird thing is getting tiring.

hhmmmmmm

:think:

I GOT IT!!

how about something along the lines of "I just told my secretary to lose weight. If she doesn't, I'm going to fire her!"

whadda think?

[kick-ass-bob]

152. now that might just be a keeper.

Can you do it tomorrow? I don't have enough time left in the day to follow a new one.

:7

[matcom]

154. i'll pencil you in

:bounce:

[Midlodemocrat]

166. I think we should stick with the

hating kids/loving kids threads. Don't think we have heard from everyone yet.

JMHO.

[kick-ass-bob]

172. but we've scheduled it for tomorrow

and we need variety.

:D

[Midlodemocrat]

174. I don't know. Maybe it is time for a Mariah Carey thread.

[matcom]

183. i don't know. its pretty FIRM for tomorrow

i just can't drop everything and make these kind of changes on such short notice :eyes:

[Fox Mulder]

112. This law is absolutely ridiculous.

So, as far as I can tell, this law basically assumes anyone who doesn't have a child who sits on a park bench is a child molester?

That's how I see it, and it's ridiculous.

[Greyhound]

161. But it's for the children!! My god won't somebody think of the children?!?

[CanuckAmok]

176. Sorry, Mrs. Lovejoy, but the childrens' rights are no more...

...important than my own.

If I'm a threat, remove me. If not, leave me alone.

Sorry, but equality is the cornerstone of liberalism; I'm shocked to see how many NIMBY liberals here turn out in support of this law, which is, in essence, profiling.

[JimmyJazz]

182. Actually, it's the opposite of profiling. If it were profiling, then

there would be no ordinance and it would be at police discretion to determine who does and does not belong which means men would be profiled. Since NO adult is allowed to enter the park area without a child, then it doesn't discriminate against men.

I think you are looking at this as one woman/one minor infraction of a stupid law. But, think in terms of numbers. What if it wasn't one woman, but ten very large men? Because I've gotta tell you that if I'm in one of these little parks with my children and ten men come in and sit on the bench because, "well, god dammit, that's their right," then me and every other responsible mother is out of there.

It sort of defeats the purpose of having playground equipment if the kids and parents are afraid to be in the playground.

[Misunderestimator]

204. So, when you're in the zoo and ten men come and sit with you...

you would be just as threatened. Should we ban adults from anyplace where there are lots of children?

[tjwmason]

225. It's totally different.

The entire purpose of a play-ground (N.B., not a park a play-ground) is that children may play there.

[JimmyJazz]

237. But zoos are designed for people of all ages. I'm wary of why

someone would be so compelled to enter an area designated for children. I would be extra cautious of anyone without children who insisted on eating in a Chuckie Cheese's, too and yet, not bat an eyelash if the same person sat near me in an Applebee's.

Again, I am definitely making a distinction between a park and a playground. I guess I just don't understand why it's such a big deal for kids to have a designated area.

I do understand that society tends to marginalize single/childless people. I was single and childless before, too. But, I just think having a small area in a park isn't such a big deal.

And, if you notice, many of the people upset about this law are the same ones who raise a big stink if a child misbehaves in a grocery store or restaurant (and, I don't mean you). So which is it with them? Are children so wonderful that one must be around them in a playground or so heinous that they shouldn't be allowed in public until they are 18?

[Misunderestimator]

240. What? I shouldn't eat at Chuckie Cheese? Are you kidding me?

You know, sometimes, I have been known to actually swing on swings in playgrounds and climb around the monkeybars... as an adult.

I think the real point here is that it does NOT solve a THING. It's a bandaid on this threat of a problem, and it doesn't solve the problem.

As for the misbehaving in public... I think we should ban ANYONE who would run top speed through the aisles screaming and disrupting other customers, or any person who would disrupt everyone in a restaurant by having a loud, keening cry or a kicking, screaming tantrum. :)

[JimmyJazz]

242. Why on earth would you want to eat at Chuckie Cheese's?

The food is lousy and it's noisy as hell in there. But, if you are so motivated, you may take my children with you - you would be their favorite auntie :D

And, I totally agree that it doesn't solve the problem. I'm also upset that this woman could be labeled as a sex offender.

I also don't want to give the impression that I live in fear and my children are going to be totally neurotic as a result.

[Misunderestimator]

244. Well, I've never set foot in one, I'll admit...

I think you get my point anyway... I get why your concerned for your kids. I just don't think banning childless adults from playgrounds is a viable solution.

Now about those children... are they good at anything? Can we make some money on the side somehow... playing musical instruments? Something? :D

[Pithlet]

246. The woman could be labeled as a sex offender?

That is insane.

[JimmyJazz]

253. As I have posted several times,

I agree that that is wrong.

[Pithlet]

255. JJ, I'm 100% with you.

The antipathy towards children and parents that is often displayed by many at DU is offputting, to say the least. I'm in your corner, girl. You are absolutely right. I'm not buying the faux-outrage by some in this thread for one second.

[Misunderestimator]

336. Outrage? LOL!

I must have missed that. I think this is the funniest thread of the week.

[El Fuego]

199. Exactly, it is profiling

Why not ban all males under 40 from public parks? That group statistically commit most violent crimes. It's the same reasoning.

[JimmyJazz]

241. Please stop calling it a "public park" - it is not a public park

if it were, I would be in complete agreement with you. It is a playground for children. A small area designated for kids and their parents. And the reasoning behind the ordinance is that there is no valid reason for anyone without children to be in that area that could possibly supercede the safety of the children in the playground.

[enigmatic]

243. BS

The playground in my neighborhood is across the street from a seniors complex; every day as I go to work both elderly men and women are sitting on the benches by the playground talking to each other, parents there, reading, or simply relaxing. Nobody has complained, and nobody has tried to get them arrested, because it's a non-issue.

My wife and I just went to this playground last weekend and used the swing sets and had fun; other parents w/ their kids were there, and didn't try to have us kicked out. We even had a nice convo w/ one. Should they have followed your lead and had us kicked out, too?

[JimmyJazz]

251. That's different because it's not in a city and it's not a designated area

http://gis.nyc.gov/parks/lc/NYCParkMapIt.do

Here is a link to a map of the area. As you can see, the playground is a designated area within the park. This woman had access to what appears to be several city blocks of park space.

[enigmatic]

256. I am in a big city

And the playground that I described is in a bigger park.

[Misunderestimator]

202. Hear hear...

[Pithlet]

229. Again I'll state that I don't necessarily support this law

But not because it's profiling. Playgrounds are for children. They aren't for adults. So, how is it profiling exactly?

Seriously, while my initial thought was that this is a ridiculous law, I'm starting to rethink it. Why is it such an imposition to have things that are for children and children alone? What is so awful about limiting playgrounds, a thing strictly for children, to children? It isn't any more profiling than having handicapped parking spaces. I have no problem with fining non-handicapped people from using them, and I do not see THAT as profiling. If too many adults unaccompanied by children are ruining something that is *supposed* to be for children, then why is it so awful to remedy that? Everyone's examples in this thread, zoos, restaurants, etc. are places for both children and adults.

Adults don't suffer marginalization from society from being adults, so the argument that it is profiling just doesn't work.

[El Fuego]

236. It's profiling because . . .

it is based on the assumption that every adult is a potential pedophile. (This is stated in the article.)

Racial profiling is assuming someone is a criminal just because race. This is an analogous situation, because there is an assumption that all childless adults are criminals.

[Pithlet]

238. But it isn't based on that assumption.

It is based on the assumption that playgrounds are for children. Pedophiles aren't the only reason to ban adults. Like I've said before, I've seen enough public playgrounds ruined to the point of disuse by vandalism. Children can also be intimidated by bigger kids and adults and leave the playground. All kinds of reasons.

It isn't excluding a group for the sake of excluding that group or to send a message of any inferiority of that group, it is merely limiting use to those for whom it was intended. There is no huge conspiracy out there to marginalize adults and their participation in society. It's merely keeping playgrounds functioning for those who's use it is intended for.

[El Fuego]

258. Quoting from the linked article:

". . . parks officials . . . said the law was in place to protect children from pedophiles."

So this particular law in NYC is based on that assumption.

Playgrounds are arguably meant for kids, but do we really need the POLICE to ENFORCE which areas are meant for which segments of society???

[Pithlet]

260. I'm speaking generally.

I'm not defending that specific law. The idea that excluding adults from a children's playground is discriminatory is the only thing I'm arguing here. I think the specific law being mentioned is ridiculous and I've said so elsewhere in this thread. But the arguments being used in this thread are almost as ridiculous. The notion that this is a discrimination issue worthy of Martin Luther King is beyond laughable.

[madinmaryland]

178. I've seen those signs before in the City.

It only applied to the playground portion of the park, not to the entire park.

I honestly would not want single adults lurking around in the playground. But there shouldnt be anything wrong with being outside of that area.

[JVS]

186. Belly dancer, eh?

[Midlodemocrat]

212. LOL. I saw that, too. Wonder why they felt the need to report that?

[JVS]

319. Is it some kind of code word for "prostitute"?

:shrug:

[patcox2]

198. I have no problem with it at all. Its a park for kids.

Only the parents of the kids using the park are allowed. Thats fine with me. There are a million places kids aren't allowed to go.

[Pithlet]

239. Who would have thought

that the idea that playgrounds are for children would be such a flameworthy topic. I'm willing to bet that a large chunk of the people who are indignant over this don't even know where most of the playgrounds are located in their community. This whole thread is absurd.

[tigereye]

209. this law will lead to a big lawsuit

it's absurd. I am a parent and I think it's unfair to ban all adults not with kids... it's over-protective and negative. Everyone just needs to watch their kids... this kind of law bans good people as well as the creeps. Makes no sense - I enjoy watching other adults - young, old, etc. enjoy kids playing.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

210. I think it's fear-mongering. I don't live my life assuming every childless

adult is a pedophile.

[patcox2]

217. Pedophilia is one of a dozen reasons for a rule like this.

Christ, its perfectly reasonable to me. Its a childrens playground. Maybe part of the reason is just to preserve the space for kids.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

222. I'd be interested in hearing the other 11.

Because I don't get it.

[redqueen]

233. I've got one.

There aren't enough benches for all the parents.

Why should people who don't even need to be there hog up all the seating?

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

235. OK, I see that as an issue... but worthy of a law seems silly.

:hi:

[Lavender Brown]

247. I think one of the reasons may be that these areas are enclosed,

almost private areas sometimes(for the playgrounds in my Brooklyn neighborhood, you had to open a gate to get in). Maybe part of the reasoning is that that semi-privacy is attractive to drug dealers. :shrug: I do know that drug paraphernalia being left behind and found by kids is a big problem throughout the city, it comes up in letters to the editor all the time.

[Graf Orlok]

262. This is the best reply in this thread.

:toast:

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

263. Thank you. And I will expand on it..

I think it gives a false sense of security and could be more dangerous"

That's the same argument I make for banning specific breeds of dogs. The part I don't get is how a liberal can support legislation like the 'no childless adults" and breed specific legislation...

I have a child; I am in fact a single mother. I do not assume that childless adults are all pedophiles waiting for me to turn my back so they can abduct my child. I prefer to live my life assuming that MOST people are good. Am I careful? You bet! But paranoid enough to legislate away other rights??! Fuck no.

[In_The_Wind]

213. This Is An Absurd Law!

[Pithlet]

224. Yes, it is.

But you have to admit that it's hilarious watching adults huff and puff about their rights to be at a playground without children.

[really annoyed]

278. I second that motion

Totally nuts!

[TK421]

215. I promise everyone here that this will not last long....

[miss_kitty]

245. I have reinforcements!

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[tainowarrior]

265. I understand the rationale

to protect children from roving child molesters, but this is ridiculous. You can't reign in a complete set of people because of the fear of one or two crazies.

What you need is to have more security at the parks and better law enforcement against criminal child molesters and repeat offenders.

[Dastard Stepchild]

266. But some people love to watch children playing...

And have no intent to cause harm. Some people just find it delightful to see the little ones putzing around in the sand or on a swing.

I can understand the intent of the law, and I'm not sure if I really support it, but I can comfortably say that the punishment seems a bit steep.

Of course, this reminds me of the cruelty perpetrated on numerous Chuck E. Cheese visiting adults that are denied entrance into that most excellent of amusements - the massive ball pit. I guess some things are intended to be only for children... ball pits, kiddie playgrounds, elementary school.

All in all, this law doesn't really invoke much emotion from me, but I can hear and appreciate both sides.

[Misunderestimator]

270. Good point, but the Chuck E. Cheese ball pit analogy doesn't fly....

unless you were to compare it to a jungle-gym where parents usually do NOT join their children. Otherwise, Chuck E. Cheese would have to ban all adults unless accompanied by a child, from the entire place, not just the ball pit. That would be a valid comparison.

[Dastard Stepchild]

271. yeah....

I was just trying to think of other specific places where adults are not allowed to partake in play. I wasn't really trying to make an analogy or a comparision... in fact, I don't even think I was trying to make a point. I was really just lamenting the fact that I can't play in the ball pit, though I would very much like to.

[Misunderestimator]

272. LOL!

Me too dammit! :D

[Dastard Stepchild]

274. :-D

Everytime I walk by the Smal Land in IKEA, I stare at the little kids playing in the ball pit with envy.

I really wish there was a bar that had Boddingtons on tap and a ball pit. I'd be there just about every night. :)

[Misunderestimator]

277. Oh man... that sounds like heaven!

Make that Guinness and I am so there.

[Dastard Stepchild]

304. That can be arranged...

Guinness and Boddies on tap :thumbsup:

[progmom]

306. i'm in too!

:hi:

[Dastard Stepchild]

307. ohhhh....

ain't no party like a plastic ball party cuz a plastic ball party don't stop.

:headbang:

[progmom]

309. and I love both Boddingtons and Guinness, so I'll be very happy

:hi:

Do you think we could rent those things?
And those big bouncy things - what are they called? Moonwalks?

Oh yeah - party in my back yard next summer. We just have to get MisU up too. :)

[Dastard Stepchild]

311. oh dear LORD....

I would SO be there. I'd be doing this annoying little dance/skipping-type thing designed to convey my childlike glee for all things bouncy and plastic ballish. I'll bring the tiki torches and faux Easter Island head statue-shaped cups just for an unrelated, yet kitschy ambiance.

woo-hoo! :party:

[progmom]

312. ok, we're definitely having a party.

you have to let me know when you're going to be here, and we'll plan something. (do you think anyone minds that we hijacked this thread?)

[Dastard Stepchild]

314. I think that people secretly want in on the party...

and to this I say...

There shall be no law expressly prohibiting any adult from partaking in moonbounce/ball/beer/kitsch festivities at chez progmom. So hop on the fun train and be sure to bring a fun snack to share. No ants on a log, please.

[progmom]

315. yes, definitely no ants on a log

:rofl:

[Dastard Stepchild]

316. phew.... agreement there...

Many a righteous party has been taken down by the mere presence of wrinkly little raisins drowning in peanut butter.

[progmom]

317. i don't like raisins or peanut butter

;)

I'm a fiend for guacamole though. Will that be a problem?

[Dastard Stepchild]

318. tsk... it just ain't a summer party

without that heavenly green goo.

mmmmmm..... guacamole. <drool-type reaction ensuing>

Ok.. so we have amusements, beverages, fiery light sources, nibbles.... you have 4.7 million CDs, so the music is covered...

Can I say it? Fabulous. FABULOUS!

[progmom]

339. I make a really good guacamole.

And MrsGrumpy has some kind of okra obsession...we'll have to figure out the menu.

[JimmyJazz]

329. thanks.

[Pithlet]

296. Drunken ball pit frolicking does sound fun

:bounce:

[Dastard Stepchild]

305. woo-hoo!

:)

[Pithlet]

273. I used to feel that way about ball pits, too.

I remember thinking it was too bad they didn't have those when I was a kid. Until I found out that they're major dirt and debris collectors. I won't gross you out with the details. Now I won't let my own kids play in them anymore.

[Dastard Stepchild]

275. ...

:cry:

My childish fantasy destroyed.....










:)

[Pithlet]

279. I'm so sorry.

At least you didn't have to discover that little secret yourself :)

[Dastard Stepchild]

308. for this I am thankful....

Thankful, with a slight hint of wistfulness for the moments past when I thought plastic ball pits were good, clean fun.

[Pithlet]

340. I'm sure an adults only ball pit wouldn't harbor such hazards.

:)

[hickman1937]

267. I'm totally on board with this. Also designated No Children areas.

Totally agree with the concept. Never been to New York, but my city's parks need both types of spaces. Something to look into.

[CanuckAmok]

282. Oh, but the same parents who defend "no lone adult" zones would never...

...support anything as unfair as a "child-free" zone. How are little Britney and Dalton going to become socially adjusted if they're not immersed in every aspect of adult culture all day, every day?

FWIW, when BC Ferries restructured, they polled their passneger demographic on ways to improve the service. One of the most popular suggestions was having a "no children" zone, because so many parents seem to have no interest/skill in haveing their children be reasonably non-intrusive.

Of course, an "no children" zone would be legally unconstitutional (and open the corporation to legal action), so BC Ferries went the other way; they created a "quiet zone" on some of their routes, which cost an additonal $7 per person to enter. It's not legal for them to prohibit children from the zone, but parents never, ever, want to shell out an extra $7 per child to enter, so problem solved.

[Pithlet]

284. That's where you're wrong

Parents aren't a homoginous group of people who all think the same way and are all clueless idiots.

[CanuckAmok]

285. I think we've had enough thread in here...

...that would support my claim. Most parents seem to think that limiting their children's access to specific venues is unfair.

[JimmyJazz]

287. Not me. I'm all for child free zones. Where I'm from, we call them

bars. ;)

[Pithlet]

290. You too?

Wow, two of us in one thread :) I'm personally grateful for them, because as much as I love my kids I'm not averse to adult only get away from children time. As much as that may shock some.

[redqueen]

343. I don't understand why it's okay to stereotype parents.

We can't do that with gay people, different races, or sexes...

but's it's A-OK to do to parents.

Hmmmmmmmm....

I'm with you ladies. Child free zones are A-OK by me. In fact, I think they exist already. Don't ever remember running into any kids at Sambuca.

:shrug:

Guess some people just love to bitch. This thread is pretty much grade-A evidence of that!

[Pithlet]

288. Nope

I have nothing wrong with places and events that aren't kid friendly being reserved for adults. And I don't see any evidence of anyone else in this thread who feels otherwise. I think you have a prejudice against us and are interpreting things in this thread to fit that prejudice. No one in this thread has argued against adult only anything.

In fact, if you have no problem with adult oriented places and activities restricting children, then why are you so bothered by those oriented towards children restricting adults? While the law that the OP is about is absolutely absurd, I don't think a specific playground posting restrictions limiting the playground to children's use an egregious violation of rights. I don't understand that double standard.

[JimmyJazz]

291. You what else? I get PISSED at parents who bring their children to

events or places that aren't child friendly. I even get upset when I hear about a parent who took his or her child to an inappropriate movie.

[Pithlet]

292. Me, too.

Some parents are indeed clueless. I'll still never forget the screaming kid at Saving Private Ryan. I know I've told this story here before but that one really sticks in my mind.

[Missy Vixen]

297. Have I got a story for you!

>support anything as unfair as a "child-free" zone. How are little Britney and Dalton going to become socially adjusted if they're not immersed in every aspect of adult culture all day, every day?<

Somehow, I just knew I'd get to use this one somewhere.

A group of our friends went to Gay Bingo last June. (For those who haven't been, Gay Bingo in Seattle is bingo games run by drag queens. I highly recommend it.) To say that Gay Bingo is not a child-friendly activity is an understatement. Since one can't legally play bingo for prizes in Washington State till one is 18, one would think this would keep out the small fry. Uh-uh. On this particular night, the table across from ours featured three elementary school aged children, obviously bored. I'm sure that they would have enjoyed a more age-appropriate activity.

The best part of the evening for us? Anyone who's been to Gay Bingo knows that when a certain pair of numbers is called in the game (typically denoting a consensual sex act between adults,) the entire crowd is exhorted to stand up, wave their daubers and shout, "O-**!" The room quieted for just a moment after this demonstration of debauchery ;-), and I could hear the youngest child as clear as can be: "Mommy, what's "O-**"?"

Julie

[Pool Hall Ace]

331. So true. Remember, there were quite a few parents who were

upset about the existence of a childfree dating service.

"What? But my children are so precious! You'll meet them and your heart will just melt!!"

[alarimer]

276. This is fucking ridiculous

This poor woman needs to sue the fucking city. ASAP. Stupid law. Somebody without children (or with none present with her) is assumed to be a molester???? Now she has to be on some kind of register when she did NOTHING WRONG? HARMED NO ONE?? Our society is clearly fucked up. Children have more to fear from their own relatives and babysitters than strangers.

[bridgit]

289. the law, whether dumb or 1/2 baked, is designed to protect children...

"We pay our taxes. We have the right to sit anywhere in the park we want to!" is a goofy way to look at almost anything.

"I PAY TAXES TO DAMNIT and I want to run red lights!!" that's just dumb-ass.

here in sacramento there is a place in landpark called: fairy tale town. you are not allowed to go in there without a child. the regulation is designed to curtail child predators.

the other day, a family took their simple minded, 35yr old daughter there & was denied entry because she is clearly not a child. she just likes & wanted to see the pretty colors & childlike settings yet she was turned away = them's the rules in: fairy tale town...

http://www.fairytaletown.org/index.html

children need to be protected, i hope there is no argument about that being in fact the case.

[Solon]

298. False Analogies abound in your post...

First, driving is a privilege not a right, however, it has been recognized public spaces are PUBLIC, as in, no unreasonable restrictions. Also, another thing, this fairy tale town sounds like private property, unless they violate equal rights laws, they can ban based on that particular restriction, that's understandable.

Actually, I don't understand this setup at all, where I live, playgrounds are just the corners of parks with the jungle gym and swings and other playground stuff. Hell they even have ADULT swings in the same location, along with ball parks, soccer and basketball courts in many of them. Basically, these places are playgrounds for people the age of 0 to 100+. Muncipal pools are the same way around here, mixed ages, no restrictions, seems to work fine around here, kiddie pools and all.

In fact, the only restrictions we have in our parks are the standard curfew, which you pay with 10 25 bucks for if caught, and in some of them, no skateboards, bikes, rollerblades/skates obvious safety reasons.

[bridgit]

321. the analogy isn't even mine, it is made by a person in the OP...

that by paying taxes you can sit wherever your having paid taxes entitles you to do so. public or not; the practical matter is that that is a low grade form of urban legend. neither i should mention are you "entitled" to sit on a bench in front of children swinging on a swing for having paid taxes. though to address your mention...

a driver's license is in the end: bought, tested, maintained by ancillary factors such as auto insurance, gas prices, mechanical up-keep, and so in a very real sense 'paid for'. to me it is neither privilege nor right; it is something that needs to be thus & so or i have to ride the bus. but it is certainly not 'a privilege' you receive as does a bush family member receive a privilege for having been born into the bush family.

the extension is mine & i stand by it. by simply paying taxes, or for that matter, having folding money in your pocket, you are not by that happenstance endowed with an extracurricular access to & usage of public parks that benefit a far greater vision field of citizens including they whom pay no taxes whatsoever.

my hope is that you have nice public parks in your town. we have several here where i live; but there are certain that had a host of restrictions placed upon them because others were not able to respect the wishes of either the greater whole, the charter, the foundation, or for that matter the republic.

though here i am glad you've brought up "municipal pools" in that i have an opportunity to report my displeasure with having to swim through some taxpayers pee whether their right, privilege, entitlement, or biological need to have expressed themselves however briefly.

[ekelly]

320. Who is to say

that the PARENTS at the park with their own children ARE NOT PEDOPHILES?

Takes 35 seconds to lure a child, huh?
Seems to me that an adult WITH a child would actually have an easier time engaging another child to play and feel comfortable.

Stupid law...........not only childless adults are pedophiles.
Teenagers can be pedophiles. Parents can be pedophiles.

Would a member of the clergy be arrested/ ticketed for being in the park? Somehow I doubt it.

[bridgit]

322. first of all welcome to du, ekelly...

there's no way i can say it's a good reg, just that there it is in response to children needing our various protections and oddly...even with the headlines so filled with what they print; a member of 'the clergy' could likely take a bus load of kids to fairy town so go figure :shrug: maybe they hope they are working the averages

[LisaL]

294. I think it's the most ridiculous law I ever heard of.

What's next? If a person walks on a sidewalk and a child walks by, will this person be arrested for being in close proximity of the child? I mean, how stupid can a law be?

[Solon]

299. First, I don't understand this particular law...

Second, this law WOULD be more reasonable if it was just a reasonable fine, like 50-100 dollars. Also, does anyone know if she will end up being listed on a sex offenders list for this?

[LostinVA]

332. From posts up thread, yes.

[Fleshdancer]

310. the obvious solution:

keep responding to this thread just to see how big it gets. That'll show those park people. and stuff.

:D

[Blue-Jay]

313. YAY! The "hide thread" feature is back!

[Dave Reynolds]

323. Holy shit, matcom.

14 hours later and this fuckin' train wreck is STILL on the front page.

You da man.:thumbsup:

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

326. .

[matcom]

330. its a gift

;)

[underpants]

335. Kick

So everyone has a chance to see this

:kick:

[matcom]

337. your so bad

:P

[Shell Beau]

341. I can't believe this thread is still going! This has

to be some kind of record for a flame war!!!! Way to go matcom :thumbsup:

[matcom]

342. thank you very much

can't imagine WHY i opened the :popcorn: right off the bat :D

[Shell Beau]

346. You have ESP!!!!

:P

[LynneSin]

351. My 2 cents - it's a good law but a harsh punishment

Personally, as a childless adult the last place I want to hang out is at a kids playground (unless I happen to be with someone with kids).

Unfortunately there are too many creepy people skulking around here so it isn't such a bad thing to have a playground park where adults must be accompanied with their children.

However, the woman could have made an honest mistake. I think I've seen that park in NYC and the sign wasn't that noticable. If she isn't on any sex offender registries I say she should get a warning not to go there again and be done with it. Jail should be for violent criminals not harmless mistakes

[The empressof all]

352. The Park is now locked and closed

Thanks for your attendence.