cybercat wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote
>>>
>>> That's overly simplistic.
>>
>> I see it as a summation of her life's choices.
>
> It is incredibly arrogant of you to think you can sum up *anyone's*
> life choices.

And it is incredibly apologetic of you to overlook those same choices.

>> Now, we could list all of
>> those choices and debate whether she had "control" or was "forced"
>> to live as she did; and whether a good parent would make such
>> choices when responsible for the care and nurturing of a child. I
>> prefer to cut to the bottom line and say that her choices (and yes,
>> these *were* choices) as a parent were poor. And her continued
>> lifestyle and choices were not conducive to properly parenting a new
>> baby.
>
> I can see that you feel very comfortable making this judgment. I
> would not be.
> Whatever you can live with.

Judgements are a part of life. It is not my judgement, but ANS's sad lack of
judgement that created her mess.

>>> I am not a "blame the parents" apologist,
>>> but there are powerful circumstances that severely limit, if not
>>> one's choices, at least one's ability to see the full range of them.
>>
>> That would only apply if she were living in a societal vacuum.
>>
>>> A powerful one is to either not have a father or mother in your
>>> life or to have an abusive one or both.
>>
>> And yet so many people, living under such circumstances, manage to
>> go on to lead happy, healthy and productive lives.
>
> And yet so many people, living under such circumstances, do not, and
> in fact do much worse than take their clothes off for a pile of money
> and have tacky taste in clothes and makeup.

Hmmm, is that a judgemental comment on her appearance?

>>> Another is to be born with a propensity to substance abuse.
>>
>> Propensity to substance abuse is an arguable concept. But what is not
>> arguable is that there is still a choice of whether to partake, or
>> not.
>
> Nearly every concept is "arguable." Current studies on serotonin and
> other brain chemicals strongly support a hereditary disposition toward
> getting wasted due to an imbalance of these natural tranquilizers.

And there are other studies which contradict those conclusions. In any
event, no study demonstrates a lack of the ability to choose.

>>> I've seen it too many times, and up close. And I still think it is
>>> ugly of you to callously comment on things you really have no idea
>>> about that the tabloids did not put in your head.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but can you name what tabloids I read, 'cause I haven't
>> been getting my subscription. As far as seeing lives gone bad up
>> close and personal, I would guess that a lot of us have seen this.
>> Some of us may have even worked with such folk professionally.
>
> Again, you are simply not qualified to pronounce judgement on this
> woman whose life you only know via the media--tabloids or otherwise.

If that is the case, then the converse is true: you are simply not qualified
to pronounce a judgement that her life had no effect on her child, and then
baby. There are facts that are well known about her life, and from those
facts one can easily discern whether those things have the potential to harm
a child or not.

> It is a simple
> point. Others of us see what we are being fed and wonder about the
> rest of the story.

And yet that is not what you are arguing for. I wonder what the whole story
is, too. But all I need is one taste of spoiled milk to determine if it's
yucky; I don't need to drink the whole carton of milk.

>>> Have you actually seen her mother interviewed about her? She
>>> clearly hated her and was envious of her even when she was
>>> just a child.
>>
>> Sure. And I've seen many adults who have survived far worse, with
>> far less resources, turn their meager scraps of a life into lives
>> that are a model of goodness. They are raising kids that are healthy
>> and happy, and will likely pass on a legacy of positive
>> contributions to society.
>
> "Models of goodness." I see. So, Vickie Hogan is suddenly a "model of
> badness?"

Sure. If you see otherwise, I guess that explains a lot about your mindset
in this thread.

> And these "models of goodness" pop out children that are "healthy and
> happy, and
> will likely pass on a legacy of positive contributions to society,"
> eh? *Snort*

My observation stands.

> You seem to enjoy a tremendously simplistic, two-dimensional world.

Why; because I refuse to accept self-destructive behavior as a role model
for children? It's my turn to snort.

> And you *do* seem to blame/credit parents entirely for how children
> turn out.

No. But you seem willing to give a pass on parent's behavior if it requires
being 'judgemental'.

>> I have argued about the best interests of a child.
>
> So your comments about this woman's choice in life were intended
> to build the argument that her child is better off with her dead?

No, that would imply that ANS's death should have been actively sought. My
argument is that since Smith *is* dead, that perhaps a positive outcome will
be a child growing up with a healthier lifestyle and a more normal
childhood.

> Well, there really is not much to say in response to that.
>
>> Instead of arguing that ANS was a good parent whose lifestyle
>> choices were a positive thing for a child,
>
> Why would I argue that? I am not countering your absurd claim, I am
> saying that you are not qualified to judge a woman you do not know.

But I am qualified, as any reasonably intelligent person is, to judge her
actions. Actions which can harm a child.

>> you have instead outlined issues about ANS that are supportive of my
>> initial statement. To wit: the death of ANS will probably give the
>> new baby the best chance at a normal and healthy life.
>
> Of course I didn't.

Sure you did. Go back and re-read.

> I said that there were many circumstances in her
> life that complicated matters,

And your list of those "complicated matters", as they impacted Smith, are
things which could absolutely impact her child.

> and that you are not qualified to
> pronounce her an unfit mother, or someone whose child is better off
> now that she is dead. I don't even have to "argue" that, it is so
> damned obvious to everyone but you.

Don't argue it. It doesn't matter one wit.

> From all accounts, she had a close and loving relationship with her
> son.

"From all accounts".... Gee, is it just me, or does this not sound
hypocritical? You can rely on the "from all accounts" information to press
your argument, but I'm not allowed to do the same?

> Many teenaged mothers do not develop this type of relationship
> with their children. Some abuse them, some never develop maternal feelings
> for them.

It seems that you are saying that teenage mothers should become topless
waitressess, as that will make you a loving mother?!!

> And some mothers who appear to be, oh let's see, how did you put it?
> "models of goodness?" are very cold and unloving toward their
> children. Proper in appearance, but unsupportive, and destructive to
> them.

But then they wouldn't really be models of goodness now would they? It's
never the "appearence" of goodness, but the actual character of the parent
that determines goodness.
>
> Love is not all it takes, but it is a big part of it. Better a big
> blowsy weird
> wasted nude-posing, pole-dancing who adores you than a tight-assed
> little Women's Club "model of goodness" who keeps her clothes on and
> her heart empty of everything but what others think.

Neither one is healthy. And that is not the choice. I never argued for poor
parents who fake "goodness" for appearence sake. That is your construct, not
mine.

>> I could care less about the choices ANS made and how she decided to
>> live her life. My argument was about her life as a damaging and
>> destructive influence on her children.

> Your argument says a lot about you.

And your argument sure says a lot about you.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com