Debalic wrote:
Hell is too good for people like this. Limbo would be better.
Limbo's still too good. I'd rather their souls be cast into oblivion to be slowly consumed by the endless nothingness there.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- There's a special place in hell...
There's a special place in hell...Follow
Limbo's still too good. I'd rather their souls be cast into oblivion to be slowly consumed by the endless nothingness there.
I don't understand why ordinarily rational people abandon their sense of justice and become bloodthirsty vigilantes when a ******* child is involved.
Okay that's a lie; I understand it perfectly. It's still stupid.
I don't think it can be said that you have an objection to the death penalty when you are willing to throw it to the wayside for something that happens often enough to where it becomes expected.
Okay that's a lie; I understand it perfectly. It's still stupid.
Quote:
Words fail me. I am quite willing to suspend my general objection to the death penalty here.
I don't think it can be said that you have an objection to the death penalty when you are willing to throw it to the wayside for something that happens often enough to where it becomes expected.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
I don't understand why ordinarily rational people abandon their sense of justice and become bloodthirsty vigilantes when a @#%^ing child is involved.
Okay that's a lie; I understand it perfectly. It's still stupid.
I don't think it can be said that you have an objection to the death penalty when you are willing to throw it to the wayside for something that happens often enough to where it becomes expected.
Okay that's a lie; I understand it perfectly. It's still stupid.
Quote:
Words fail me. I am quite willing to suspend my general objection to the death penalty here.
I don't think it can be said that you have an objection to the death penalty when you are willing to throw it to the wayside for something that happens often enough to where it becomes expected.
Sure you can. Your objection to the death penalty just can't be a moral objection. I object to it because it's not cost effective. Sometimes, though, I'd be willing for society to spend the extra money.
Right, you're not objecting to the death itself; you're objecting to a principle that encompasses it. You can't really in any meaningful sense be said to object to the penalty in that case; we just abbreviate it that way for convenience.
Sounds like she's mentally ill to me. Although I'm not qualified.
The part that gets me is that she buried the kid at the playground, for Christ's sake. I have some vision of a pink Hello Kitty shovel uncovering a foot.
That's effed up, man.
That's effed up, man.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
catwho the Pest wrote:
I hate kids. People tell me:
"It's different when they're your own!"
And then I read stories like this and know they are dead wrong.
"It's different when they're your own!"
And then I read stories like this and know they are dead wrong.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
I don't understand why ordinarily rational people abandon their sense of justice and become bloodthirsty vigilantes when a @#%^ing child is involved.
We've gone over this like eighty bajillion times. It's because children are a sensitive topic, especially for parents. Anything that threatens them is met with a disproportionately violent response by the average joe.
zepoodle wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
I don't understand why ordinarily rational people abandon their sense of justice and become bloodthirsty vigilantes when a @#%^ing child is involved.
We've gone over this like eighty bajillion times. It's because children are a sensitive topic, especially for parents. Anything that threatens them is met with a disproportionately violent response by the average joe.
/this.
Apparently Pensive you're the only one who can't grasp this concept.
zepoodle wrote:
We've gone over this like eighty bajillion times. It's because children are a sensitive topic, especially for parents. Anything that threatens them is met with a disproportionately violent response by the average joe.
Children have been made into a sensitive topic by our culture. They are the just cause of our day, as nationalism and religion have been before. Every crime is immediately worse if a child is involved, regardless of the consequences engendered. Many people load up children with false ideals of innocence and purity until the become something no longer human but sacred and divine. It's a fad for them.
Samira wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
She said she had second thoughts and performed CPR on the boy, resuscitating him, but reconsidered and smothered him again.
This is one of the funniest things I've read in my life.
It really is.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
I think it more has to do with the fact that when somethign happens to an adult, at least an adult has the capacity to understand what is going on and has a better chance to fight back. Kids dont have that ability against another adult. Adults are also aware that not everyone is safe to be around, including potential family members. Most kids dont learn that yet. And when it's a parent who hurts or kills a child, it's the biggest breach to being a parent. There are always other options if you feel you are not cut out to be a parent besides killing your child.
Lady DSD wrote:
There are always other options if you feel you are not cut out to be a parent besides killing your child.
For a rational person, sure...most of the time in these cases it seems to be pretty clear to me that it wasn't a calculated, reasoned decision (as I feel was the case with Casey Anthony, sociopath though she may be)...most of the time these women just seem ******* crazy. I've never heard one in confession saying things like "I couldn't bear to give her up for adoption so I killed her." They always speak as though they didn't recognize there being another option, which is nutty. I know it makes it that much sadder, but in some of these cases, it's pretty clear that the mom was nuts enough to think that what she was doing was in the best interest of the child because they have some insane idea that their child is going to suffer horribly and they're essentially putting them out of their misery. Again, I'm not saying this in any way makes sense, but that's why I think they're crazy as hell.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
I read a similar description of the mental state of fathers who kill their families. "There's no way they can live without me/live with what I've done" sort of thing.
Yeah, not rational but then it isn't a rational moment.
Yeah, not rational but then it isn't a rational moment.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Mindel wrote:
catwho the Pest wrote:
I hate kids. People tell me:
"It's different when they're your own!"
And then I read stories like this and know they are dead wrong.
"It's different when they're your own!"
And then I read stories like this and know they are dead wrong.
Have to say, that made me laugh . There have been plenty of tricky times where I would have loved to just walk away from being a parent for a few days . Have to say though, never considered actually killing the little demon yet though :)
I think we can all agree that anyone who kills another person is not rational or sane, at least at that moment. No rational person would kill unless in pure defense. And it takes a special sort of crazy to kill a kid.
That being said, unless there was a previous history of mental illness documented or observed from others who knew the parent, being temporarily insane does not acquit one of such atrocious acts. It shouldnt be used as a get out of jail free card. Some murders where it's really obvious there were issues of mental health before? Sure, lets hear the whole history. But not all cases are like that.
That being said, unless there was a previous history of mental illness documented or observed from others who knew the parent, being temporarily insane does not acquit one of such atrocious acts. It shouldnt be used as a get out of jail free card. Some murders where it's really obvious there were issues of mental health before? Sure, lets hear the whole history. But not all cases are like that.
publiusvarus wrote:
Smashed,
And Democrats think it's their right.
Quote:
Big deal. Mothers are by a huge margin the people most likely to murder children.
And Democrats think it's their right.
Get off it. That's really dumb, even for you.
Goggy wrote:
Sounds like she's mentally ill to me. Although I'm not qualified.
The problem will lie between behavioral health vs criminal justice; she's sick, she needs help vs. she committed a crime and she must be held accountable for it.
I don't know if it is a mental disorder, yet. Certainly the mother had behavioral and emotional issues stemming from what may be an emotionally abusive childhood.
Her inability to bond with her child, makes me wonder if she had postpartum depression.
How could you sit there and watch your child die, bring them back to life and do it all over again? Dump them in a dumpster alive, least they'll have a chance. Maybe even make the news and get adopted by some lonely billionaire widow.
Sora,
That some of you are looking for a rational explanation for insanity is irrational in and of itself.
That some of you are looking for a rational explanation for insanity is irrational in and of itself.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
I don't think it can be said that you have an objection to the death penalty when you are willing to throw it to the wayside for something that happens often enough to where it becomes expected.
I don't think there's anything expected when something like this happens, but that's beside the point.
It's not the fact that it's a child murder that got me. I never believed that Andrea Yates should get death. Hell, I never believed she should even get prison. There was a clear case of mental illness there.
I think what got me is the fact that the child was sleeping. If a parent snaps and kills their child when they're being exceptionally difficult to handle, I can see why that would happen. Not that it's not horrible and awful and a complete tragedy, but I can at least see where it comes from, because God knows there have been a couple times as a parent when I've had to physically leave the room in order to avoid doing or saying something I would regret later.
But this baby was sleeping. I look at my little boy sleeping, and he's SO sweet and angelic and cuddly and trusting. Sometimes, I can just sit there and watch him sleep and be in complete awe of this little person I've made. I'm filled with peace and wonder (and, let's be honest, a good deal relief that I have a few minutes of quiet.) My mind fails to encompass the idea that someone can look at their baby in that state and somehow decide that they are going to kill him. And not JUST kill him, but suffocate him (which means eventually he's going to rouse at least partially and start struggling and be aware that his MOTHER, the person whom he trusts beyond all else, is doing something bad to him. I'm quite sure there was a moment when he opened his eyes and saw her there as he fought to breathe.
But it doesn't even end with that. Not only did that take place, but then she resuscitated him and did it AGAIN! And somewhere in between the first time and the second time, the pacifist part of my brain just curls into a ball and gives up on the idea of trying to understand or sympathize or show pity for her and instead lets the primal mama-bear "hurt my cub and I will eviscerate you with a single swipe of my massive paw" part of the brain have free rein.
So there it is--the fact that I can visualize with what I suspect is a fair degree of accuracy what happened while this act took place combined with my instincts as a mother makes for an utter inability to feel any inclination toward mercy or understanding when I read about this particular incidence.
Ambrya wrote:
But this baby was sleeping. I look at my little boy sleeping, and he's SO sweet and angelic and cuddly and trusting. Sometimes, I can just sit there and watch him sleep and be in complete awe of this little person I've made. I'm filled with peace and wonder (and, let's be honest, a good deal relief that I have a few minutes of quiet.) My mind fails to encompass the idea that someone can look at their baby in that state and somehow decide that they are going to kill him. And not JUST kill him, but suffocate him (which means eventually he's going to rouse at least partially and start struggling and be aware that his MOTHER, the person whom he trusts beyond all else, is doing something bad to him. I'm quite sure there was a moment when he opened his eyes and saw her there as he fought to breathe.
Again, at the risk of sounding like I'm trying to justify something that I'm not...
How many times have you heard someone say that they hope when they die, they die in their sleep, at peace? If this mother felt as hopeless as it sounds like she did, and felt that her child would suffer the same childhood that she did, and she wishes that she was dead (she attempted suicide), would it not make sense to the crazy that when putting someone out of their misery that she might have looked at him, sleeping peacefully after playing in a park and think that it's not going to get any better than this?
I'm far more horrified at that guy that dropped his kids off the bridge one by one, knowing the terror that their last minutes held and that the autopsies showed that they were alive when they hit the water.
Ok, that's enough of this thread for me. I was feeling better this morning so I'm just not going to be reading any more of this nonsense.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Ambrya wrote:
I think what got me is the fact that the child was sleeping.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
I agree with Nexa in that killing sleeping children is the merciful alternative.
No rational person would kill unless in pure defense.
Not true. A truly rational person would kill simply to procure/preserve resources for themselves and the things they care about (better their own position). It's our morals and fear that prevent us from killing. Her actions are morally wrong, but depending on her situation may very well have been a rational choice.
Not true. A truly rational person would kill simply to procure/preserve resources for themselves and the things they care about (better their own position). It's our morals and fear that prevent us from killing. Her actions are morally wrong, but depending on her situation may very well have been a rational choice.
Recent Visitors: 19
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (19)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- There's a special place in hell...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC