Sweet Jeezus, that's 3 or 4 pages I missed out on!  First of all, let me say thank you Jodi for articulating much of what I attempted to in the other thread, and doing it well.  Also want to quote this:

QUOTE: I agree with Jodi on this one. I'm not saying all adult males wanting to spend time w/ kids not their own have bad intentions. But many do. And parents unfortunately aren't equipped as mind readers. So for the safety of their child, a little "profiling" is unfortunately necessary in the real world.  Doesn't mean I wouldn't let any adult male near my child...just means I'm going to view them with a much healthier dose of suscipicion until they earn my trust. Better safe than sorry.

This is exactly what I was saying in the other thread, thanks to you as well (Joel) for stating it so well.

Al, I'll say this- when I learned you put me on ignore, but still kept offering opinions about me, then I ignored you right back.  Why should I read yours but you can't read mine?  Also, I didn't read a single post after my last one (still won't) because I believe at that point I was simply fighting back against misinterpretations.  So I have no idea what you wrote after that point; hopefully I'm not accusing you of doing more than you have done with your "agenda".  You're just sneaky and snarky with almost anything written about me or to me ever since a couple years back I mentioned something about JB's drawing I thought didn't look right (which I realize is inappropriate to do and said as much later) and especially since the more recent childless men thread derailment.  Already in this thread there are misinterpretations, so let me clear up a couple things if anyone cares to read them:

1) I have absolutely no prejudice towards men that are incapable or unwilling to have children.  I hope if they desire to, they'll find some way to be able to experience the joy of having their own child, medically or through adoption.  This includes gay couples!  There really is no way someone can infer from my statement in this thread that I am against gay adoption.  I'm simply speculating on why people may be against it.

2) As a father, I will profile, be prejudicial, or forbid if necessary any situation in which my girls will spend a significant time alone (especially overnight, such as camping trips or sports trips) with anyone.  However, a red flag will go up in my mind (beyond my normal suspicions) if I hear that the leader is a male who chose to supervise the kids without the benefit of getting involved for his own child. Please do not confuse this with prejudice against inability or unwillingness of a man to have a child of his own.  What I am doing is making sure that he gets involved with the best intentions.  I am a father, and I understand what it's like to get involved in your child's activities.  When I was not a father, I didn't understand wanting to get involved with other kids' activities, so the little bit of extra suspicion may be no more than trying to understand for myself why some men can be selfless with others' kids.  But, for the occasional news story that mentions the terrible alternative, I'm going to be vigilant.

3)  Prejudice is not lawful.  Perhaps prejudice is wrong (but that is wildly interpretive).  To make a blanket statement that it's wrong is idealistic nonsense and frankly, hypocritical bullshit.  We are all prejudiced against people, everyday.  You choose to buy a certain kind of car because it's: American-made, non-American-made, more economical, not driven by a particular type of person (such as a guy not wanting a pink car because that's for girls) or what have you.  But you're prejudiced for it.  You choose not to live in an inner-city housing project, because you want a better life and you don't want to greatly increase your chances of getting shot dead.  But you're being prejudiced against the class or color of the people living there.  You choose to go to a private university instead of a community college, even though it would be so much cheaper, but you know you'll be considered more qualified in your chosen profession to go with the better choice.  But you're still showing prejudice for the people who do teach or attend there.  We can never allow prejudice legally, and we shouldn't.  But every choice you make in your life is prejudicial against someone involved in the rejected option of your choice.

Geoff I am sorry but when it concerns children, when a man wants to spend alone time with them, I will be leery of them, so yes I guess some profiling is OK in my book

Fine, again I understand the desire to protect children. All of us want to protect what we love.  But then you shouldn't condemn other types of profiling because it simply other citizens protecting what they love.   

My God I think I am a republican.............kidding!!!!!!...........i would never become a republican

Who's to say we'd have you? :o)

Who am I kidding of course we would look who we let into this party . . . .

I never noticed before but I can totally hear George W. Bush convincingly delivering as his own any of Ralph Wiggum's lines.

Who's to say we'd have you? :o)

Who am I kidding of course we would look who we let into this party . .

LOL  LOL

Seriously I see what you are saying Geoff and it does give me something to think about.

And vice versa.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

QUOTE: If I had a male relative that wanted to spend a lot of alone time with my young son, then yes I would not trust that relative.

But many do and see relatives and acquaintances as people they can trust.  That's how many child molesters operating, by finding or insinuating themselves into situations in which they are trusted.

If statistics are any indication, then children are in as much or more danger from people they know, including their own parents, than from strangers.

QUOTE: To make a blanket statement that it's wrong is idealistic nonsense and frankly, hypocritical bullshit.  We are all prejudiced against people, everyday

That doesn't make it right or even justifiable.

Greg:

I can accept (albeit disagree) with some of the points raised in your first two sections but I need to take issue with the third point.  Since its long I'll break it up and address it point by point.

Prejudice is not lawful.  Perhaps prejudice is wrong (but that is wildly interpretive).  To make a blanket statement that it's wrong is idealistic nonsense and frankly, hypocritical bullshit.  We are all prejudiced against people, everyday. 

You think that saying prejudice based on gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin or faith is wrong?  Because thats what we have been talking about.  Not prejudice against Marvel Comics rather than DC, or McDonalds fries vs Burger Kings.  Based on your posts I suspect I know the answer -- that you agree that prejudice based on gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin or faith is wrong.  Of course everyone has some prejudices -- I never said they didn't.  But a responsible, intelligent adult would consider their prejudices and reject them because they are most often based on a generalized non-specific fear and distrust not the situation or individuals at hand.

You choose to buy a certain kind of car because it's: American-made, non-American-made, more economical, not driven by a particular type of person (such as a guy not wanting a pink car because that's for girls) or what have you.  But you're prejudiced for it. 

Thats not remotely what the discussion was or pertaining to.  You are equating choice and tastes with prejudice.  They are not remotely the same thing.

You choose not to live in an inner-city housing project, because you want a better life and you don't want to greatly increase your chances of getting shot dead.  But you're being prejudiced against the class or color of the people living there. 

Again how is this relevant to the discussion at hand? People, of any race or ethnicity choose not to live there not becuase of prejudice based on gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin or faith but because they want to live in a safer neighborhood and a place with better schools.   If someone can afford it, generally they will pick the nicest place to live.  Thats economics not prejudice.

You choose to go to a private university instead of a community college, even though it would be so much cheaper, but you know you'll be considered more qualified in your chosen profession to go with the better choice.  But you're still showing prejudice for the people who do teach or attend there. 

Bullshit.  You are looking for a better education -- and choosing the school that you feel will deliver it to you.  Again not based on prejudice based on gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin or faith. Choice based on objective standards.

We can never allow prejudice legally, and we shouldn't.  But every choice you make in your life is prejudicial against someone involved in the rejected option of your choice.

Your response is non-sensical.  You are changing the goal posts.  You are looking at defintion of prejudice that has no relationship to the discussion at hand.  You have equated choice and tastes with prejudice.

I will admit that I have a neighbor with a daughter my own daughters age that I simply will not allow around my kids, because I find him creeepy...right or wrong, I don't care.

But you are basing your concern on him as an individual, not because he is a man.  Big, and important, difference.