Submitted by MovingMoluccas98 t3_yg75do in funny
AnnoyedHippo t1_iu7ck24 wrote
Reply to comment by Beans508 in Parenthood in a pic by MovingMoluccas98
>(within reason of course)
You think a child under 1 year old is able to grasp the concept of fire and learn it is extremely dangerous? You think letting it touch fire is within reason?
Beans508 t1_iu7czcu wrote
Yes? It would put his hand near it and get a pain response and pull away. Its a candle not a stove. Lmao
AnnoyedHippo t1_iu7dihu wrote
No. It would put its whole hand into the flame trying to grasp it, harm itself permanently, and be left with still no concept of what fire is or why it's in pain.
Congrats, you permanently burned a child, subjected it to extreme pain, and gained nothing for it.
You need about another decade of maturing before you should be allowed to breed.
LastChanceMCAT t1_iu7efic wrote
He's on reddit, I don't think being "allowed" is the limiting factor here.
AnnoyedHippo t1_iu7jkpz wrote
I introduced my then girlfriend to Reddit. We've been married for 5yrs, and we have 1 son.
There are dozens of us.
Tall-Cantaloupe608 t1_iu7lb5f wrote
A child under the age of 4 is literally incapable of making memories so that is the dumbest you can do you'll scar him and still won't understand
wilderop t1_iu7o7jl wrote
My 2 year old remembers things. I know because after he bumps his head while running he is more careful. However; I would not let a 10 month old touch fire.
Tall-Cantaloupe608 t1_iu7uicm wrote
That's not possible, at the age of 3 and under your brain is not developed enough for that
kokomo24 t1_iu8fgiz wrote
Got something to back that up professor?
Tall-Cantaloupe608 t1_iu8fyj7 wrote
Apparently I was wrong and its 2 and a half years old
[deleted] t1_iu80frx wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments