you know....

[kuangning]

Appearing on television within twenty-four hours of your kid's admission that he planted 18 pipe bombs, and making the statement "my son is not a dangerous person" doesn't help his case. It only makes you look either feeble or plain fuckwitted.

Comments

[galith.livejournal.com]

There are no such things as bad dogs, only bad pet owners.

One could extend that statement to 'there is no such thing as bad children, only bad parents'

but how does that work when those children become parents?

[kuangning]

it makes exactly as much sense as it did beforehand - half true at best. A bad parent can ruin a good child, a good parent can tame (and I used the word on purpose) a child who's bent on mischief/misbehavior. And there are, there are, thare *are* incorruptibles - and irredeemables - among us. Not ones that no-one can save or no-one can ruin, but ones that will never meet the people who have the capability to change them.

[galith.livejournal.com]

Its still genes plus enviroment. Have fate stir the pot and hope something good comes out. At what point does one punish the parents (who contributed the genes and a high % of the enviroment) for the child's actions.

[kaolinfire.livejournal.com]

or at what point do you stop blaming the parents?

[galith.livejournal.com]

We judge at the point when the parent is no longer legally able to control the childs actions they are no longer legally, which makes good sense.

The problem is that, ultamately, you can't. I can, at least in principle, attribute everything I do in life to my mother, as she was the one who chose to gave birth to me (not to mention any enviromental effects, the reason I am here is because of her). However, that is a pretty stupid argument when you get right down too it, and we don't belive in training parents in this culture (as well as undervalueing child care in general), which means it isn't the parent's fault either, they were just doing the best they could...

I think in cases like these something can be learned by examining the home and community this guy grew up in instead of just shrugging our shoulders and walking away.

[kuangning]

It's always going to be genes plus environment. At what point are you going to start punishing parents who reproduced and turned out to have a blind child, or one with a congenital heart defect? Those are far easier to pin on genetics than behaviour problems - it's got to be their fault.

Or parents who have autistic children, to make the case my own? Logan has behavioural problems. Autism is linked to genetics and to environment. While he is a child, yes, I do take responsibility for his actions. And if I know that he doesn't know right from wrong, it's my fault if I expose someone else to his actions. But once he is an adult, if I judge that he knows right from wrong and I release him under his own recognisance, so to speak, then what he does after he takes on the role of an adult is his responsibility.

[galith.livejournal.com]

Generally with those it is a result of a spontainious mutation or a recessive copy of a gene that neither parent is aware of. However, I think people with both Hunington's disease and early onset alsimers should not have children of their own (or if they do they need to do invitro or similar to be able to screen the conceptus and make sure it does not have said genes), and PURPOSEFULLY having a blind, deaf, or mentally handicapped child is also grossly amoral.

I'm not saying that we should prosecute these parents like we procecute dog owners, the situation is much more complex, just that we should take a closer look at the enviroments they were raised in to get a clearer picture.

And while we are doing that we need to take care not to jump and assign the blame all to rock and roll, video games, or pornography.

Re:

[kuangning]

PURPOSEFULLY having a blind, deaf, or mentally handicapped child is also grossly amoral.


That... still needs to be narrowed down, I think. For example, is it your belief that if a child is discovered in uteri to have a mental handicap or a physical abnormality, that child should be aborted? Because it certainly sounds like that's what you're advocating. Handicapped children, imo, have as much right to exist as non-handicapped, and I would only ever consider terminating another pregnancy (I've had one abortion in the past, when I was much younger) if the child in question would be in chronic pain, or be guaranteed to never be a productive adult. That issue is different from the one I think you meant, of setting out to deliberately conceive a handicapped child.

[kuangning]

I truly need to reread my work before hitting post. in utero, not uteri.

[fearghaill.livejournal.com]

I don't think he's talking about people who choose to accept the handicapped child fate as given them, but the people who actively choose and make an effort to ensure that thier child is handicapped.

For an example, if you haven't heard about it, a deaf lesbian couple (I only mention sexual orientation as it explains why they were looking for a sperm donor to begin with), actively chose a deaf sperm donor to increase the chances of the child being deaf. They succeeded.

Re:

[kuangning]

*nod.* I did think that that was what he was referring to.

[galith.livejournal.com]

Yes, that is what I was refering to, things like that. I have mixed feelings on doing so without intention, but doing so with intention is very amoral.

[kaolinfire.livejournal.com]

very well put; I like how you capped the extremes with practical boundaries instead of theoretical ones. :)

[kuangning]

I have a real problem with those absolute evil/absolute good theories. There's always a possibility for change. But sometimes it doesn't get fulfilled. No monsters, no saints, just people.

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

One could extend that statement to 'there is no such thing as bad children, only bad parents'

No, one couldn't.

That seems to me like a case of passing the buck; looking for anything to blame other than the perpetrator. If you're in college and generally seen as well-adjusted prior to that, any actions you take are your own fault.

I'm twenty-one. So if I go and do something stupid, is it my fault or my parents'? I'd say mine. Popular culture seems convinced that nobody who isn't an adult "for real" ("but he's over 18! He's legally an adult!" "Oh, but he's not really an adult!") is capable of performing actions of their own free will.

I'm just wondering how long it'll be before they blame *this* on violent video games and rock music. (CNN made a big deal about him wearing a Cobain shirt, as though the two were somehow connected.)

People need to realize that sometimes something somebody does is their own bloody fault. Just because they're not forty yet doesn't make them some kind of victim, their crimes one whose real cause has to be hunted down.

That's irresponsibility.

Sorry if I was vauge...

[galith.livejournal.com]

It was the kids fault, much more so than the parent, and he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. He is fully responsible for his actions. Period. My point was more along the lines of 'there is probably SOMETHING messed up with this kids parents, or at least his enviroment, and it would be good to look into what that is.'

And yeah, whenever a youth decides to do something nutty they always seem to blame it on music or video games. *sigh*...