Hacker News Reader

Comment by mlang23 | Hacker News Reader

Two things need to be said: This reminds me of my earliest complex dream. As a child, when I first learnt our home address I immediately dreamed a rather long story where our house was robbed and I was mailed to the other side of the planet. I still remember when the parcel was opened, and I saw the light again. I immediately told 'em my home address so that they could mail me back.

That said, “It got some headlines when it happened, probably because it was so cute," followed by "(although they did insure him for $50)" doesnt sit very well with me. Maybe I a uptight, but some irresponsible actions of parents are not cute, they are just irresponsible, thats it. I have a feeling parents, when talking amongst each other, like to downplay their obvious shortcomings. I can almost feel the downvotes coming, because I know parents really dont like to be reminded about that.

View on HN

Downvoted for not reading TFA

"...little May wasn’t unceremoniously shoved into a canvas sack along with the other packages. As it turns out, she was accompanied on her trip by her mother’s cousin, who worked as a clerk for the railway mail service, Lynch says. It’s likely that his influence (and his willingness to chaperone his young cousin) is what convinced local officials to send the little girl along with the mail."

Edit: snipped some

OP is referring to the first example used in the article— the Ohio baby “just shy of the 11 pound weight limit” mailed to relatives a few miles away. This sounds more reprehensible than the Mailing May story you reference.

Why precisely is it "reprehensible" to entrust your child to a short trip in the care of someone who you know and see on a regular basis, and who will be heading in that direction shortly with his vehicle?

Would you consider daycare centers and the like to be more or less reprehensible?

you downvoted someone for not RTFA - but post from a throwaway?

If the criticism is valid then its source is surely irrelevant.

The calling it throwaway was a mistake of mine, I should have called it Anon or similar because anonymity not disposability was its purpose.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that unnecessary throwaway-posting could be viewed as a greater violation, as it shields you from downvotes. If anyone disagrees that the criticism is valid, they cannot effectively downvote you.

To put it another way, If the arrest is valid then who cares if I'm not a real cop?

As I carefully explained, account is throwaway in name not intent. If you look at my profile it's over a year old.

> If the arrest is valid then who cares if I'm not a real cop?

In the uk, no-one. We have citizens' arrest. It appears the US has similar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#United_States

Impersonating a police officer is still illegal in the UK, the point is: the ends don't justify the means.

My response was to the comment:

> If the criticism is valid then its source is surely irrelevant.

If the account was a throwaway, the source would have mattered. I think it's worth making this counterpoint irrespective of whether your account is a throwaway, since you made an argument that would seem to defend that case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com