Sorry about forgetting the ETA. I assumed that you could read at the bottom that it had been edited.
Not while I was typing a response to the version without the two closing paragraphs. (Note my previous post.)
You exaggerated the statement to situations with "everyone" rather than what I actually said.
No. I exrapolated. That's why I referred to it, for clarity, as a "slippery slope". I presume you are familiar with the expression. (Waits while several pedants come in with their dog-eared copies of Skepticism For Beginners to pick nits.)
And I do stand by my opinion that you did not read the actual article before commenting. You simply argued against me.
And I will also continue to point out when it is obvious to me that people are not reading that actual articles. I will also point out when people respond by generalizing a specific statement which you can clearly see in reading your comment is EXACTLY what you did.
Not surprisingly, you're wrong.... yet again. You attribute motive that isn't there to people's posts all the time. You accuse people of not understanding what you wrote. You now elevate that to not having read a rather short article or watched a three minute video? What's the point. We are NOT, I repeat, arguing the facts of the case. We are discussing whether or not we agree with the actions of the officials. I do not. I'm marking you down for "agree".
If it makes you happy to believe I didn't read the article, then believe away. If you think there's something in there that makes your subjective opinion more correct then my subjective opinion, please cite it. Otherwise, you're just trying to muddy the waters with a worthless accusation. The content of the article is really not germane to the discussion we're now having. It's the background material; the case study as it were.
I think if she had the wherewithall to call the school and tell them he might show up there, this indicates that she knew he was a threat to others. And the fact that she didn't quit after he did this is a completely stupid and selfish act IMO.
Victim blaming. I ask you again, and you'll likely dodge the question again: Where does this slippery slope lead us? You do know the statistics on domestic violence, I take it? Any teacher, any care-giver, anyone involved in a job where civilians could be harmed by a vengeful spouse abuser... they'd all have to quite their jobs for fear of an outside chance of some sort of additional misbehavior by the spouse. This is going to mean a lot of resignations from workplaces. She couldn't say for certain the guy was going to be violent or harm the kids just as the guy up the block here (a teacher) can't be sure that his wife, who threw a potted plant at his head last month, isn't going over to his school to fling vegetation in earthenware at the kids so we're left with determining what the actual threat is.
And domestic abusers being barcrap crazy, who's to say that when he gets out of jail later this month he doesn't go over and toss a grenade into the lunch room?
