Not the sign of good parents

[greensinestro]

In Target yesterday, I went in to get a few bath items for my kids. While I was there, I saw this couple looking at the baby furniture, things like walkers, swings, high chairs, etc. They obviously had a baby, but I saw the carrier for the baby was empty. I thought, well, that's odd, but continued looking at the bath items. After I found what I wanted, I noticed the couple's baby was in one of the walker displays. Now, these displays sit on a shelf, not on the floor. There is also a big red sign with white lettering on it that says "For yours and your child's safety, please do not place children in the display furniture. Also for safety reasons, displays are not for sale."

To me, this is Target's way of covering their asses by disclosing how dangerous it is to put your child in this furniture they have displayed. No matter what though, this couple was letting their child sit in this walker, while they chatted with each other about other things. Why did they think that sign was there? Maybe it's part of the baby furniture?

Next thing you know, they'll sue Target for having unsafe displays, no matter how forewarned they were.

[LingualMonkey]

Reminds me of my last time in Wal-Mart. I saw a family looking for carseats for an infant, maybe 2-3 months old. They were contemplating just getting a booster seat because it was cheaper than a rear-facing seat. Who cares that it's a) dangerous and b) illegal?

[Amina516]

Reminds me of my last time in Wal-Mart. I saw a family looking for carseats for an infant, maybe 2-3 months old. They were contemplating just getting a booster seat because it was cheaper than a rear-facing seat. Who cares that it's a) dangerous and b) illegal?

A BOOSTER SEAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!? WTF!!! FOR AN INFANT? I fuckin shudder to think of what would happen to that poor baby in a car accident.

Some people should need a license to breed..

[LingualMonkey]

I know. It's one of the reasons I no longer shop at Wal-Mart (apologies to any Wal-Mart employees. It's not you--it's the customers).

I finally swore off Wal-Mart a couple years ago when, one winter night, I observed a family walking through the parking lot. As they waddled out to their cars, I noticed that following them was a young child, maybe 18 months to 2 years old. Following them. As in behind everyone in the family, not holding on to anyone's hand or in the cart. Across a busy parking lot. At night. With no one watching.

Kid deserved better parents. I decided that I'll shop elsewhere, even if I spend more money, to avoid being involved in a vehicular homicide case for seeing red and running over the friggin' parents next time.

[nomorecarts]

I no longer shop at Wal-Mart (apologies to any Wal-Mart employees. It's not you--it's the customers).

send that to corporate via email, if they get enough emails saying that the way they let customers act costs them customers they'll grow a backbone


although inattentive parents are everywhere, if you go to a target of equal traffic you're just as likely to see it there, just not as likely to see someone bitch out a manager and be given a gift card for it.

[Iris Kojiro]

Reminds me of my last time in Wal-Mart. I saw a family looking for carseats for an infant, maybe 2-3 months old. They were contemplating just getting a booster seat because it was cheaper than a rear-facing seat. Who cares that it's a) dangerous and b) illegal?

They screen foster parents before they allow them to adopt...makes me wish they would do the same to biological parents too!

[One-Fang]

That's the stupid thing. You've got to prove you can sensibly raise a child to foster one (and possibly adopt?), but any danged fool can go have their own, biology allowing.

[Dark-Star]

^ Although I'm a hard-core conservative, the idea of some sort of screening process to have kids is becoming more appealing every day. Even a basic 50-question worksheet and a 'hands-on' simulation with a doll would catch so many rotten apples...

[chainedbarista]

unfortunately, if someone fails to pass the test, there is no way to legally keep them from breeding because 'it's their right.' geh; these are also the same people who are buying crap they don't need while ignoring real needs (like good food, shelter, water) for luxuries.

those people with the booster instead of an infant seat will likely try to sue because they'll make some asinine claim like, 'we didn't know you couldn't use this for an infant.' what's scarier than that is some lawyer will probably take the case, tool

[Iris Kojiro]

...what this world has come to, huh? I agree that the actions of some have really poisoned my mind to the world, whether it be an idiotic parent, a rude customer, or otherwise.

However, I must apologize...my offhand remark has unintentionally steered the topic into Fratching territory. Before I get anyone into trouble, let's just stick with individual examples. Again, sorry...

And speaking of which...

At one of my jobs, I work a drive through. At said drive through, there was a parent who had her small child in the front seat. While there was a back seat available. Without a special booster seat at the minimum. *headdesk* I have many more, but I must be up early...