Somebody Needs to Be Held Accountable! (Why Not Married?)

[Phatscotty]

The confirmation bias is strong in this thread. Also the self righteous condemnations.

True, but it does swing both ways.

Anyway, someone should remove the mother in the OP's vagina.



(hahaha, that can be read two ways: either someone should remove the vagina of the mother in the OP or Phatscotty has a mother inside of his vagina)

too true, too true. I read it as the motherhood capabilities of the mother in question should be removed. As in remove her ovaries.

With regards to the lady, sounds like she is irresponsible, however its very easy to judge from afar. I hope other posters will forgive me for saying ole Glen may not be showing the whole story.

The story is 100% reported in the local news. Glen just gave a bit of tough love.

[Baron Von PWN]

The confirmation bias is strong in this thread. Also the self righteous condemnations.

you can confirm people don't like being forced to give something to someone that they themselves have to earn.

it's called being responsible and accountable, not self righteous condemnation.

hmm thank you for making my point.

[Phatscotty]

The confirmation bias is strong in this thread. Also the self righteous condemnations.

you can confirm people don't like being forced to give something to someone that they themselves have to earn.

it's called being responsible and accountable, not self righteous condemnation.

hmm thank you for making my point.

yes but your point was confirmation bias right? What does imposing ones need onto someone elses time and labor have to do with bias? How is it self-righteous to ask someone to at least attempt to provide for themselves? Is it so greedy when other people find a way to make it and expect that if they are going to chip in their hard earned money to say, pay for all your rent, that you at least maintain your free place that shelter her "gifts from god", or does she not give a flying f*ck? To at least try to provide for themselves? Is it self-righteous and biased to wonder aloud if this mother is doing anything with these "gifts from god" to make sure they do good in school or homework, ya know, to like, do everything you can to hope her children have a chance at a better life? Is it high and mighty of me to use the "teach someone to fish rather than give them fish" proverb? Is there nothing at all to be said for complete and utter hopelessness when it's crystal clear this woman has given up and is so completely trapped into this generational welfare and homelessness and starvation for her and her family (voting democrat no doubt!)

I say this woman has gotten all the help she needs, and if she just would give up the cocaine game, maybe things would change for her and she could earn money and learn the value of it. She can ruin her own life I guess, but now she is depriving her children of many opportunites and probably ruining their lives too. It's tragic and this needs to stop.

[Lootifer]

Lulz!

[joe snuffy]

People love free shit. As long as somebody else pays for it. She has a family of 15 Democrat voters.

[PLAYER57832]

Stahrgazer, what is that dribble you posted? I'm not even going to bother quoting it here because it's so completely out in left field in regards to this topic. How on earth is it SOCIETY'S job to take care of this woman's children??

Two reasons, well 3 actually, but the third is commonly disgarded.

1. If they are not cared for, they WILL be our problem.
2. No child asks to be born.
3. Finally, the religious issues. Christianity, etc dictate care for those unable to care for themselves.

That is even aside from the fact that your "solution" has nothing at all to do with any reality.

Pretend all you like, but comic boy had it right when he told you to read Grapes of Wrath. Or, just look at history. The fact is that welfare had a LOT to do with the prosperity of the 50's. 60' and 70's. Except, then folks decided to celebrate greed and the 80's and 90's brought us where we are now.

[Baron Von PWN]

The confirmation bias is strong in this thread. Also the self righteous condemnations.

you can confirm people don't like being forced to give something to someone that they themselves have to earn.

it's called being responsible and accountable, not self righteous condemnation.

hmm thank you for making my point.

yes but your point was confirmation bias right? What does imposing ones need onto someone elses time and labor have to do with bias? How is it self-righteous to ask someone to at least attempt to provide for themselves? Is it so greedy when other people find a way to make it and expect that if they are going to chip in their hard earned money to say, pay for all your rent, that you at least maintain your free place that shelter her "gifts from god", or does she not give a flying f*ck? To at least try to provide for themselves? Is it self-righteous and biased to wonder aloud if this mother is doing anything with these "gifts from god" to make sure they do good in school or homework, ya know, to like, do everything you can to hope her children have a chance at a better life? Is it high and mighty of me to use the "teach someone to fish rather than give them fish" proverb? Is there nothing at all to be said for complete and utter hopelessness when it's crystal clear this woman has given up and is so completely trapped into this generational welfare and homelessness and starvation for her and her family (voting democrat no doubt!)

I say this woman has gotten all the help she needs, and if she just would give up the cocaine game, maybe things would change for her and she could earn money and learn the value of it. She can ruin her own life I guess, but now she is depriving her children of many opportunites and probably ruining their lives too. It's tragic and this needs to stop.

Your slamming of some unfortunate woman (Wether she is unfortunate from her own actions or not), is rather self righteous yes. I may as well go yell at homeless people who ask for change it would be on the same level. Except this poor woman gets to be denounced by national media figures, I'm sure that will help her "Learn to fish".

It is confirmation bias as, you look at this case and wave your hands in the air "look! look! it's nanny state dependency! everything I've been saying is confirmed!" . When in actuality this is one unfortunate woman in a shitty situation, who yeah isn't dealing with it well, but really is not indicative of the wider system.

[Phatscotty]

it's all about the attitude and where it comes from.

[jimboston]

I like how all these guys are up in arms over this one crazy lady and her dozen kids needing assistance, but would be equally as outraged (if not more) if she had wanted to legally abort those kids before they became mouths to feed.

This bears repeating.

This bears repeating... but it's not true.

I don't want to pay for her bastards... AND I am fine if she aborts them.

So um... you're WRONG Dave.

[jimboston]

I like how all these guys are up in arms over this one crazy lady and her dozen kids needing assistance, but would be equally as outraged (if not more) if she had wanted to legally abort those kids before they became mouths to feed.

Yep. She could have been more responsible by either using birth control or not marrying someone who wound up in jail.

And by the way, my problem with her is her greed. She has utter contempt for those who are already giving her way more than she deserves instead of being grateful for their help.

I highly doubt she ever married any of the fathers.

[jimboston]

I like how all these guys are up in arms over this one crazy lady and her dozen kids needing assistance, but would be equally as outraged (if not more) if she had wanted to legally abort those kids before they became mouths to feed.

Yep. She could have been more responsible by either using birth control or not marrying someone who wound up in jail.

And by the way, my problem with her is her greed. She has utter contempt for those who are already giving her way more than she deserves instead of being grateful for their help.

I have utter contempt for those who, as dave points out, get all up in arms about abortion, then resent that a woman who believes her kids, "are a gift from god," so she has a lot of them, wants PROPER assistance to care for the gifts.

I have utter contempt, as well, for those who blame the woman for not being on birth control or for not being mind-reader enough to know in advance that her fiance will go to jail.

Birth control isn't 100% and some of the same religions that are severely against abortion are the same religions that are severely against birth control.

The woman may not be the sharpest tack in the street as regards her choice in men, but she was, apparently, attempting to do the right thing by getting engaged/married to someone.

She's not grateful for inadequate assistance, but maybe if she had what she felt was adequate assistance, she would be.

The same government that gave her kids back to her apparently promised to help.

Meanwhile, even though there are government programs, there's absolutely NOTHING forbidding "private charity" to step in where the government program is failing. And yet, this woman's kids still don't have shoes, proper things to eat, an adequate place to stay, proper transportation for school.

I don't like having to pay for someone else's kids, but most of my property taxes go for THEIR schools anyway. People don't complain about building an education system, but complain about giving someone shelter, food, clothing, and medical treatment. People protest abortion, then gripe about someone who agrees abortion is wrong.

Abstinence? Heck, you read all the time, not even priests who have made sacred VOWS to be abstinent, always remain abstinent...and they are non-abstinent, frequently, with little boys trusted to their care. At least this woman is messing around with men, not children trusted to her... and you expect the average person to be more perfect than that?

Nothing is perfect.

This woman proves she's not perfect.

But just how many boots is she expected to lick to "be grateful" for inadequate support from a series of government and private programs that apparently promised to help her care for those "God's gifts" properly.

You're f**king retarded.

[jimboston]

too true, too true. I read it as the motherhood capabilities of the mother in question should be removed. As in remove her ovaries.

With regards to the lady, sounds like she is irresponsible, however its very easy to judge from afar. I hope other posters will forgive me for saying ole Glen may not be showing the whole story.

Don't need the whole story.

Single mother.. 12 kids.

That's pretty much all I need to know.

It shouldn't happen unless she's independently wealthy.
Even then I would think it's wrong.

[Baron Von PWN]

it's all about the attitude and where it comes from.

I'm sure being denounced by national radio hosts and their whipped up audiences is the perfect atmosphere for self improvement.

[jimboston]

it's all about the attitude and where it comes from.

I'm sure being denounced by national radio hosts and their whipped up audiences is the perfect atmosphere for self improvement.

I'm sure this woman is CAPABLE of self improvement.
(sarcasm)

[Aradhus]

I like how all these guys are up in arms over this one crazy lady and her dozen kids needing assistance, but would be equally as outraged (if not more) if she had wanted to legally abort those kids before they became mouths to feed.

This bears repeating.

This bears repeating... but it's not true.

I don't want to pay for her bastards... AND I am fine if she aborts them.

So um... you're WRONG Dave.

If you're hard up bro, PM me your address and I'll remunerate you to the tune of a thousandth of a cent or so that was taxed from you and spent contributing to her existence.

If you need help just ask.

[Phatscotty]

it's all about the attitude and where it comes from.

I'm sure being denounced by national radio hosts and their whipped up audiences is the perfect atmosphere for self improvement.

I think you might have more of a point if you focused on how it is people can ignore the tragedy itself and possibly even defend it?

[Lootifer]

it's all about the attitude and where it comes from.

I'm sure being denounced by national radio hosts and their whipped up audiences is the perfect atmosphere for self improvement.

I think you might have more of a point if you focused on how it is people can ignore the tragedy itself and possibly even defend it?

I don't think he was defending anything; I think his main point was your confirmation bias and how anyone can dig up a single incident to "prove" almost any assertion, and then use that proof to whip up a publicity storm and denounce an entire (and possibly well functioning?) system based on ONE observation. This is where the confirmation bias kicks in and you and NS metaphorically slap each others asses in celebration that once again you views are rationalised.

[Phatscotty]

it's all about the attitude and where it comes from.

I'm sure being denounced by national radio hosts and their whipped up audiences is the perfect atmosphere for self improvement.

I think you might have more of a point if you focused on how it is people can ignore the tragedy itself and possibly even defend it?

I don't think he was defending anything; I think his main point was your confirmation bias and how anyone can dig up a single incident to "prove" almost any assertion, and then use that proof to whip up a publicity storm and denounce an entire (and possibly well functioning?) system based on ONE observation. This is where the confirmation bias kicks in and you and NS metaphorically slap each others asses in celebration that once again you views are rationalised.

That's okay because I did not specify him as a defender, just a few other people in here.

This doesn't prove anything accept for how far an entitlement mentality can go.

[Baron Von PWN]

it's all about the attitude and where it comes from.

I'm sure being denounced by national radio hosts and their whipped up audiences is the perfect atmosphere for self improvement.

I think you might have more of a point if you focused on how it is people can ignore the tragedy itself and possibly even defend it?

It's obvious this woman is not the best decision maker in the world. She has clearly fucked up big time and is desperate. It seems unlikely to me she has the skills necessary, and it seems like she knows it, and is desperate for effective help, and lashing out. In my mind the appropriate response would be to attempt to help her get the skills to handle the situation. An appointment with a good social worker, something along those lines. (of course that assumes such things are funded, nuts to that though its much more fun to publicly denounce her.)

A national campaign to shame and verbally abuse her does not seem to be a good way to improve the situation. Quite the opposite.

[Baron Von PWN]

This doesn't prove anything accept for how far an entitlement mentality can go.

Classic confirmation bias.

[Phatscotty]

it's all about the attitude and where it comes from.

I'm sure being denounced by national radio hosts and their whipped up audiences is the perfect atmosphere for self improvement.

I think you might have more of a point if you focused on how it is people can ignore the tragedy itself and possibly even defend it?

It's obvious this woman is not the best decision maker in the world. She has clearly fucked up big time and is desperate. It seems unlikely to me she has the skills necessary, and it seems like she knows it, and is desperate for effective help, and lashing out. In my mind the appropriate response would be to attempt to help her get the skills to handle the situation. An appointment with a good social worker, something along those lines. (of course that assumes such things are funded, nuts to that though its much more fun to publicly denounce her.)

A national campaign to shame and verbally abuse her does not seem to be a good way to improve the situation. Quite the opposite.

Okay I'm with that. It's just that the next step in the process for me is how can she change it? We can start with what we know, and that is that the security net we have set up for people in desperate need actually encourages people to strive to stay in "desperate need", and learn to depend on it because it is secure and you don't really have to do anything to get that money. All I ask is that we put a little bit of common sense thinkin into it and try to focus the aid in a way the encourages people to get a new skill or requires them to prove they are seeking work and even be willing to be placed in a job the government/temp agency might find for them.

The national campaign has already started with the entitlement mentality gone wild, and it's called Occupy Wall Street. This is just a raw glimpse into societies dark underbelly that everyone wants/needs to ignore.

[Lootifer]

To me the OWS movement had about as much "entitlement mentality gone wild" as Tea Party has (had?) racist people as members. Sure there's one or two bad apples, but generally speaking the movement was about corporate greed and exploitation.

[Night Strike]

Stahrgazer, what is that dribble you posted? I'm not even going to bother quoting it here because it's so completely out in left field in regards to this topic. How on earth is it SOCIETY'S job to take care of this woman's children??

Two reasons, well 3 actually, but the third is commonly disgarded.

1. If they are not cared for, they WILL be our problem.
2. No child asks to be born.
3. Finally, the religious issues. Christianity, etc dictate care for those unable to care for themselves.

That is even aside from the fact that your "solution" has nothing at all to do with any reality.

Pretend all you like, but comic boy had it right when he told you to read Grapes of Wrath. Or, just look at history. The fact is that welfare had a LOT to do with the prosperity of the 50's. 60' and 70's. Except, then folks decided to celebrate greed and the 80's and 90's brought us where we are now.

They already ARE our problem because the mother can't be responsible enough to take care of her own children. She's demanding that the people who are already donating to her pay even more to take care of her own kids for her. If she wants her kids taken care of but doesn't want to do it herself, she needs to put them up for adoption. That way she won't need more handouts and those kids can actually be raised in a responsible environment instead of perpetual welfare. The chances of these kids growing up to be productive members of society are awfully slim as long as they are with their give-me-everything mother.

[BigBallinStalin]

To me the OWS movement had about as much "entitlement mentality gone wild" as Tea Party has (had?) racist people as members. Sure there's one or two bad apples, but generally speaking the movement was about corporate greed and exploitation.

Yeah but didn't you hear about the one time where that liberal fascist commie black guy was doing some bad stuff; therefore, the entire OWS is bad?

[natty dread]

Ah, how easy it is to condemn others who are in a bad situation, when you're one of the NightScotties of the world who live in a bubble where they've never had to endure any hardship at all.

I'd love to see NightScotty try to work a job that pays well enough to support 13 people while simultaneously taking care of 12 children.