DescentBB

CUDA wrote:

Isaac wrote:If I'm for something that's currently illegal, like legally being able to kill people under a specific circumstance,

is this even English???

Are you asking what commas are for? And no, they don't end sentences, like they do in Oregon.

"is this even English???" Caps cost moniez, Yo.

More! Keep replying to me!

All in favor to deport Isaac to russia raise their hands..

Ah, I hate cold! I'll behave, I swear!

Thenior wrote:Kind of jumping in at the end here but...

I don't see how you can say that a child doesn't understand right and wrong? Sure, they don't know every single instance of what right and wrong is, but they understand it as a principle.

Ever seen a little toddler take a cookie, and hide it?

Ever seen your little niece who is less than two get a defiant look in her eye, and do exactly what you just told her not to?

We're not saying that young children can't have some sort of grasp on the concept, but it's far from complete and mature. More importantly, we do know that, from a biological standpoint, they don't yet have a firm grasp on the potential consequences of their actions, or the ability to use said consequences to influence their decision-making. You said it yourself: a young child (and hell, even a teen) will turn around and do exactly what they were told not to do, simply because they haven't yet grasped why they shouldn't do it in the first place.

And as a few people have noted, even a rudimentary grasp of "right" or "wrong" depends on those concepts being taught by a caregiver. Given the environment this child probably grew up in, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he'd never had those lessons taught to him.

I'm pro murder, as long as it's legal the legal kind.

just to clarify. Since you obviously missed it the first time

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent

Murder is illegal in every state in the union. including Texas.

Capital punishment on the other hand is not Murder

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the killing of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense

an offense like murder which is illegal.

If I'm for something that's currently illegal, like legally being able to kill people under a specific circumstance

this must be some kind of Texas-Mexican slang, because most people that live outside the ghetto tend to phrase their sentences with some form of structure. and since you're having diffculty understanding the difference in legal and illegal I'll explain it to you.

le·gal   /ˈligəl/ Show Spelled[lee-guhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal

il·le·gal   /ɪˈligəl/ Show Spelled[ih-lee-guhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.forbidden by law or statute.

there you go, since I have now defined the difference in what is legal and illegal to you, you no longer have an excuse for your lack of knowledge

so if you wish to have a battle of wits PLEASE try not to come un-armed like you have in your previous posts

Hahahaha. You have nothing to teach me. Your language skills are lacking and you are unable to grasp the logic in my writing. It might not be your school system's fault, but a genetic trait.

It's always the good threads that die young.

Gooberman wrote:It's always the good threads that die young.

agreed, I'm partially at fault. I questioned Issac's response, then he made a personal attack and I didnt let it go.

CUDA wrote:

Gooberman wrote:It's always the good threads that die young.

agreed, I'm partially at fault. I questioned Issac's response, then he made a personal attack and I didnt let it go.

Ok, you're right. I'm sorry. I'll leave the thread alone...

.

Ah, guys, when I was a kid, I knew some parents that were good friends of my parents. They had a 10-year old boy that actually DID burn down their house, just to see what it would look like! Fortunately, no one was hurt in the incident. However, the kid continued to be fascinated by fire, he was labeled a pyromaniac in therapy, and was still a fire starter, even AFTER burning down his own home. I'm not sure what ever became of him, but I heard that he still had issues with fire and anger management.

What are parent's to do when their child is a monster? My younger brother was an absolute terror. He would get into everything and destroy it for the fun of it! We had to lock up all the rooms in the house just to keep him from doing wholesale destruction to our belongings! We even had to nail our windows shut to keep him from crawling out of the house when he was a toddler! You don't know how many times my mother actually thought of murder when she was at her wits end! Other than locking him in a cage, which my mother seriously considered, but never did, there was no mental health or other type of outside help available to my parents that actually solved the problem! Fortunately, time and age have mellowed him and he's turned into a decent human being. But boy, there were times that my parents didn't think they'd make it with him.

I feel for this mother who adopted this hell kid. Parents of good kids have absolutely NO IDEA of the kinds of disruption that a really psychotic child can do to their lives. And there's no help from any health or social sectors either, even if you could afford it. All these people whining about this boy's treatment should shut their traps until they've walked a mile in this mother's shoes. She did what she did out of desperation. The press, other parents and the Russians should be glad that she DIDN'T resort to murder. The orphanage is culpable here. They probably knew this boy had mental issues and they're guilty of pawning him off on some unsuspecting parents because THEY couldn't deal with him either.

Bet51987 wrote:

CUDA wrote:I questioned Issac's response, then he made a personal attack and I didnt let it go.

And of course you never make personal attacks do you.

Bee

Only to you Bettina, I just call them like I see them

.

I would think the new health care reform would had made it easier for the adopting parent to get the child help with his problems. Funny how family values have decreased over the last 50 years. I guess it's just easier to make the problem go away than to suck it up and take care of the problem.

Bet51987 wrote:

CUDA wrote:I questioned Issac's response, then he made a personal attack and I didnt let it go.

And of course you never make personal attacks do you.

Bee

Which is not a personal attack.

Back on topic. I am currently raising a 7 year old girl. Granted, not a boy, boys have their own particular issues. However at 7 knowing right from wrong is, if you have a parent or two that cares, is already built into your brain.

My 7 year old lies, knowing she is going to be found out, afraid she is going to be in trouble, she continues the lie. Only after she is TOLD that telling the truth doesn't get you in trouble, the lies do. She finally comes clean, at this point as a parent you MUST use positive reinforcement to concrete the idea that right is right is the best way to handle the situation.

Poor kid being the product of an orphanage, in Russia no less, never had a chance. That being said that woman that sent him back with a note is a prime example of why SOME people should never be gifted with children. God had a plan to see that she was barren and unable to produce children. She should have left well enough alone.

TunnelCat wrote:Parents of good kids have absolutely NO IDEA of the kinds of disruption that a really psychotic child can do to their lives.

And they'll never need to (there's a connection there that you're in denial of). I'm no parent, and I'm confident that even I could deal with a 'psychotic' child. Children need a few basic things: unconditional love, discipline, and guidance. In that order. If a child is beyond that then I'd say it's time to go to a higher power. You liberals have the ultimate victim world-view, you know that?

Hey Isaac, thanks?? I kinda felt like the thread ★■◆● till you came along

I just thought that bad seed shouldn't be sown with the rest of the crop.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

TunnelCat wrote:Parents of good kids have absolutely NO IDEA of the kinds of disruption that a really psychotic child can do to their lives.

And they'll never need to (there's a connection there that you're in denial of). I'm no parent, and I'm confident that even I could deal with a 'psychotic' child. Children need a few basic things: unconditional love, discipline, and guidance. In that order. If a child is beyond that then I'd say it's time to go to a higher power. You liberals have the ultimate victim world-view, you know that?

Thx Thorne, I really wanted to say exactly that but held back. our children are good because we parented them, we teach them to Discipline themselves, we guide them to adult hood, and we love them when they stumble. having good children takes a TON of work, good children aren't born they are made.

AlphaDoG wrote:God had a plan to see that she was barren and unable to produce children. She should have left well enough alone.

Does that mean that all barren people shouldn't have kids by adoption? Do you think that there are people out there that would (do) make great parents, but aren't able to conceive? I ask because I know of a couple that's like that... they have adopted, and do a great job with their kids.

snoopy wrote:

AlphaDoG wrote:God had a plan to see that she was barren and unable to produce children. She should have left well enough alone.

Does that mean that all barren people shouldn't have kids by adoption? Do you think that there are people out there that would (do) make great parents, but aren't able to conceive? I ask because I know of a couple that's like that... they have adopted, and do a great job with their kids.

Yeah, AlphaDog's comment was not very thought through. Maybe a barren mom was made barren because she needed to be the mother of a specific child - you really have no idea.

So does that mean someone who is born with something like a cleft lip, or with eye problems should just "leave well enough alone"? Think before you speak....

CUDA wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

TunnelCat wrote:Parents of good kids have absolutely NO IDEA of the kinds of disruption that a really psychotic child can do to their lives.

And they'll never need to (there's a connection there that you're in denial of). I'm no parent, and I'm confident that even I could deal with a 'psychotic' child. Children need a few basic things: unconditional love, discipline, and guidance. In that order. If a child is beyond that then I'd say it's time to go to a higher power. You liberals have the ultimate victim world-view, you know that?

Thx Thorne, I really wanted to say exactly that but held back. our children are good because we parented them, we teach them to Discipline themselves, we guide them to adult hood, and we love them when they stumble. having good children takes a TON of work, good children aren't born they are made.

ack, this is a horrible piggy-back but here goes.

To a point, I'll side with TC. not so much in the way of the comparison; but in the way of the difficulty of a truly damaged child.

Children with genuine issues may never change no matter how much work or truly good parenting. I do concede that this is the exception. Kids with disorders like pyromania and the like may take years and years and thousands (if not 10's of thousands) of dollars in medical to get a handle on .
All this doesn't mean that a child is beyond help, but it will make a life more than ordinarily difficult. (not impossible)

When I first read TC's quote, my mind interjected "impossible", but that isn't in that sentence; "Difficult" is there. Although, that sentence is in the superlative tense and so needs to be read tenatively.

My daughter has Asperger's and I'll tell you that it has not been fun nor easy. I'll also tell you that I've been anything but a perfect Dad.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

TunnelCat wrote:Parents of good kids have absolutely NO IDEA of the kinds of disruption that a really psychotic child can do to their lives.

And they'll never need to (there's a connection there that you're in denial of). I'm no parent, and I'm confident that even I could deal with a 'psychotic' child. Children need a few basic things: unconditional love, discipline, and guidance. In that order. If a child is beyond that then I'd say it's time to go to a higher power. You liberals have the ultimate victim world-view, you know that?

That's what my parents gave my brother, all those things you listed and more, including PATIENCE! But there IS such a thing as a 'bad seed', and he was a 'BAD SEED'. But since you have NO experience with a 'bad seed', all I can say is, BWHAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAA! You haven't a clue! Not all children are born little sweet and nice bundles of joy. Some are victims of bad genetics, uterine fetal conditions and even bad parenting. Now in your perfect world.....

tunnelcat wrote:Not all children are born little sweet and nice bundles of joy. Some are victims of bad genetics, uterine fetal conditions and even bad parenting.

I don't buy that for a second (and newborns can't be victims of bad parenting ). I'm afraid you don't understand the forces and influences at work, and I say you're using compromised examples to make an inaccurate statement about normality and the nature of reality.

By the way, smart-ass, my world isn't perfect, but I've seen examples of people who's children are consistently at peace and disciplined, and it would be foolish to chalk it up to genetics are any other bull**** cause touted by people who just don't get it, and who's lifestyle and parenting philosophy is so consistently other-than (often in easily-perceivable, negative ways).

TC, Have your brother take his kid into a chiropractor and have him examined for an \"Atlas Subluxation\".

Read Here

It might be a possibility.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm no parent, and I'm confident that even I could deal with a 'psychotic' child.

That's like saying, "I've never played a computer game, but I'm confident that even I could beat the end boss in Descent"

I'm NOT taking sides in this debate yet, But I DO think it's silly to deny that some children have problems.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Not all children are born little sweet and nice bundles of joy. Some are victims of bad genetics, uterine fetal conditions and even bad parenting.

I don't buy that for a second (and newborns can't be victims of bad parenting Wink). I'm afraid you don't understand the forces and influences at work, and I say you're using compromised examples to make an inaccurate statement about normality and the nature of reality.

I'll have to give you the newborns and bad parenting point. But are you really trying to claim that all babies are born normal? I must be misunderstanding you here. Please correct me!

Bad Parenting certainly DOES account for a lot of childhood behavioral problems. Most of them I would say. But there is no rational defense of the position that environment is the ONLY causative agent here. There certainly ARE kids BORN with extra problems that make parenting more difficult. Even a relatively normal child can be difficult to bring up, but there are children that start out with a LOT worse problems than normal.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I don't buy that for a second (and newborns can't be victims of bad parenting ). I'm afraid you don't understand the forces and influences at work, and I say you're using compromised examples to make an inaccurate statement about normality and the nature of reality.

By the way, smart-ass, my world isn't perfect, but I've seen examples of people who's children are consistently at peace and disciplined, and it would be foolish to chalk it up to genetics are any other bull**** cause touted by people who just don't get it, and who's lifestyle and parenting philosophy is so consistently other-than (often in easily-perceivable, negative ways).

Anybody who doesn't believe that genetics or uterine conditions don't influence behavior in life is seriously uninformed. What about physical genetic defects? If those can happen, so can behavioral defects since the brain is a physical organ that's built by genetic programming. The uterine chemical soup the fetus is bathed in also greatly influences fetal development too.

So you're assuming that all little babies come out perfect and flawless and that only environment shapes them? Well, do some research. Humans are more than the sum of their 'growing up' environment. If that was the only variable, we'd have perfect kids just by carefully controlled parenting. I do agree that parenting plays the largest role, but you can't dismiss the other factors out of hand. And 'bad' parenting can make 'bad' kids out of 'good' ones just as easily.

Ah, Duper, my brother doesn't have a kid, I was talking about HIM being a 'bad seed' when he was younger. All I can say is that I'm glad that I was off to college when he hit his teens! I don't blame my parents totally. Sargeant is right about one thing, parents do have the most influence and my father was a 'hands off' disciplinarian. That factor may have shaped my brother's behavior while he was young, but I somehow don't think it would have solved all of my brother's problems if my father had been become a hardass. He could have just as easily rebelled. My brother just had to grow out of some of it, mature a little. What's funny is that he's turned out like his dad in adulthood, laid back and relaxed about everything. The total opposite of when he was younger.

snoopy wrote:

AlphaDoG wrote:God had a plan to see that she was barren and unable to produce children. She should have left well enough alone.

Does that mean that all barren people shouldn't have kids by adoption? Do you think that there are people out there that would (do) make great parents, but aren't able to conceive? I ask because I know of a couple that's like that... they have adopted, and do a great job with their kids.

Not at all Snoopy, I was referring to her in the singular. That woman is obviously incapable of raising a child and the orphanage that arranged the adoption should have done it's utmost to come to that determination before they ever let that poor waif out the door.

Thenior wrote:

snoopy wrote:

AlphaDoG wrote:God had a plan to see that she was barren and unable to produce children. She should have left well enough alone.

Does that mean that all barren people shouldn't have kids by adoption? Do you think that there are people out there that would (do) make great parents, but aren't able to conceive? I ask because I know of a couple that's like that... they have adopted, and do a great job with their kids.

Yeah, AlphaDog's comment was not very thought through. Maybe a barren mom was made barren because she needed to be the mother of a specific child - you really have no idea.

So does that mean someone who is born with something like a cleft lip, or with eye problems should just "leave well enough alone"? Think before you speak....

Perhaps you should have waited for my response to Snoopy's question before you rush to bash me. You really don't know me so don't presume to know what I mean by anything I say.

You really have no idea! You should think before YOU speak!

Kilarin wrote:There certainly ARE kids BORN with extra problems that make parenting more difficult. Even a relatively normal child can be difficult to bring up, but there are children that start out with a LOT worse problems than normal.

Keep in mind that in this case, the kid was ~7 years old when adopted -- so there was plenty of time for both "problems he was born with" and "bad parenting" to take hold before the lady in the US got hold of him.

I had friends who were in a similar situation. They wanted to adopt a brother and sister, ages 12 and 10. Due to some early-childhood abuse, the 12-year-old hadn't developed a sense of consequences or right and wrong. He would light stuff on fire and do all sorts of crazy stuff. At one point, he brought a gun home (into a house with several younger children.) Eventually the couple decided they weren't the right place for the two (they simply weren't equipped to handle a kid with those particular destructive tendencies), so they sent them back into the system.

One of the major problems in the current case is that the kid was adopted from overseas. As far as I know, the adoptive family didn't have a chance to pre-evaluate the kid. They were in exactly the same situation as my friends, except for two things: (1) they had already completed the adoption, and (2) they sent the kid all the way back to Russia instead of to the nearest group home. I don't blame them for (2) at all, nor do I blame them for not being able to handle the kid; some kids just need special attention or expertise. But because of (1), they had a greater level of responsibility; simply sending the child back was a BAD idea.

(A positive note: I ran into the kid my friends had tried to adopt last year. He's now a functional adult. I didn't have much time to talk to him, but apparently at some point he managed to find a good environment that allowed him to develop the things he'd been missing.)

Lothar wrote:Keep in mind that in this case, the kid was ~7 years old when adopted -- so there was plenty of time for both "problems he was born with" and "bad parenting" to take hold before the lady in the US got hold of him.

Oh, absolutely. My only objection was to the idea that there are NO children born with problems. (IF that was what Sergeant Thorne was saying).

To weigh in on the original issue.

When you adopt, the kid is YOURS. You don't just dump them, just like you don't just dump a special needs child if they happen to be born to you.

If the child is troubled, you should seek treatment for them. If the child is truly dangerous, you may even have to institutionalize them for the safety of the rest of your family. If the adoption was not complete (As in Lothar's example) then sending them back is a legitmate option. But, in my opinion, once the adoption is complete, that kid is yours just as much as if they had been born to you. They are your responsibility now. And if you aren't willing to take that responsibility, don't adopt. CERTAINLY don't adopt sight unseen.

But that is really beside the point. The major problem here is dumping a 7 year old kid on a plane to be picked up by a "driver" that the parents have just hired on the internet to be dropped off at the adoption agency without any notification or warning whatsoever. That is clearly negligent.

That said, I think the adoption agency bears a portion of the blame. If this kid was really dangerously disturbed, they should NOT have been adopting him out to parents who had never met him and had made no preparations for a child with very special needs. And they SHOULD have known.

So, my analysis: The adoptive parents are guilty of criminal negligence and child neglect/abuse. Not because they didn't think they could handle a troubled child, but for just dumping him without proper supervision or provision for care.

The adoption agency is ALSO possibly guilty of negligence, and, depending on exactly how dangerous the kid was, possibly criminal negligence. I'd want an independent analysis of the kid though, because I don't trust the judgment of the adoptive parents and the adoption agency is hardly neutral.

I'm short of time, so I'll just say that in writing what I've written I've only meant what I wrote, and nothing more. If you think maybe I've disconnected from reality, then that is what it is, but unless I've explicitly denied the existence of physical chemistry problems... I haven't. I just don't believe in wasting time with those factors (in a discussion of causes... as a first recourse), because I deny that those are ultimately the causes of severe or major character flaws in the face of an otherwise ideal environment.

Kilarin wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm no parent, and I'm confident that even I could deal with a 'psychotic' child.

That's like saying, "I've never played a computer game, but I'm confident that even I could beat the end boss in Descent"

Is it? You're making a lot of assumptions, there.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:All this time I thought my life was preparing me to raise the next generation, and it turns out that doesn't start until they arrive...

I think most parents, including my own, would argue that all the prior knowledge in the world doesn't come close to preparing you for the actual experience of having that child arrive.

(Weird...the quote button wasn't giving me your whole post.)

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Kilarin wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm no parent, and I'm confident that even I could deal with a 'psychotic' child.

That's like saying, "I've never played a computer game, but I'm confident that even I could beat the end boss in Descent"

You're making a lot of assumptions, there.

Well, assumptions do seem to be an issue here.

I'm with Top Gun on this. Honestly, it's amazing how much I thought I knew about parenting before I became a parent. And then, after 9 years of raising a kid I thought I had learned something, and suddenly my son ends up in a wheelchair.

From my personal experiance I can say that being a kid and being around kids does NOT mean you understand what it means to be a parent. And raising an ordinary kid does NOT mean you know what is involved in raising a special needs kid. From that bit of personal knowledge I would further extrapolate that raising an only child does NOT teach you all you need to know about raising multiple children. And that raising a child in a wheelchair does NOT give you all the knowledge you need to raise a child with Downs Syndrome. Etc.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:in writing what I've written I've only meant what I wrote, and nothing more. If you think maybe I've disconnected from reality, then that is what it is,

The problem is that I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer, and sometimes I have a hard time following things. I'm not trying to read into what you are saying, I just honestly didn't understand it. That's why I asked for clarification.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:but unless I've explicitly denied the existence of physical chemistry problems... I haven't

So you DO acknowledge that some kids are born with physical problems that affect their behavior. Ok, good, we are on the same page here.

And you follow with:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:because I deny that those are ultimately the causes of severe or major character flaws in the face of an otherwise ideal environment.

And I may agree with you here as well. We have choices, even if our genetics predispose us to certain problems. Genetics can make it harder to resist alcohol, or easier to be violent, but those genetic predispositions do not excuse making the wrong choice. Some choices are harder than others, but you still have a choice. We ALL have a genetic predisposition to sin, that doesn't excuse our sin.

But its also obviously true that these physical problems make certain choices much more difficult for the people who suffer from them. A child with REAL hyperactivity will have to work much, much, much harder to learn self discipline and quiteness. This means you can fully expect the learning process to be longer and many orders of magnitude harder for them, so there will be correspondingly more failures and difficulties along the way.

ALSO, some really severe conditions seem to severly limit or even remove much of the element of choice. schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and the like. These diseases don't just make temptation more difficult, but they attack the power of choice itself. I don't know enough about these conditions to say whether the sufferers always have a choice, but I think the implications are that often do not. Without medication, they become victims seem incapable of making rational choices and no longer responsible for their own behavior.

I would say they need to be delivered... something that Jesus believed in.

(Sorry, TopGun, I'm always editing posts after posting and re-reading them. In this case I waited too long before deciding not to go there (there = drawn-out sarcasm))

Has anybody even considered this kid might be displaying perfectly normal behavior, in reaction to the life he has had up to the point where he was taken out of his country by total strangers?

I’m willing to bet there is nothing at all wrong with his development curve.

Spidey wrote:Has anybody even considered this kid might be displaying perfectly normal behavior, in reaction to the life he has had up to the point where he was taken out of his country by total strangers?

Yep. Like I said, I don't trust the adoptive parents as a source.

I've been arguing that SOME kids are born with severe behavioral problems. NOT that this particular kid has.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I would say they need to be delivered... something that Jesus believed in.

Sometimes, yes. I believe that actual demon possession does happen occasionally. But I don't see any reason why demon possession would be cured by taking a pill.

A : Someone behaves like they are Schizophrenic.
B : The doctor says they have a chemical imbalance in their brain that is making them crazy.
C : The doctor gives them a pill that is supposed to fix the imbalance, and the person's problem either disappears or improves drastically. Remove the medication and it goes back to the way it was before.

Given the above scenario, I see no reason to invoke actual demon possession. Sometimes something goes wrong with the brain. That's evil, and a work of Satan, but its not possession.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:(Sorry, TopGun, I'm always editing posts after posting and re-reading them. In this case I waited too long before deciding not to go there (there = drawn-out sarcasm))

Yeah, I figured as much afterwards. I was still seeing your original post in the browser cache, so the board knew it was gone even when I didn't.

Sorry to drag this back up, but here's an interesting article that points out this issue isn't as black and white as we think and some orphans come with mental problems that weren't revealed at the time of adoption. It's really heartbreaking that kids get caught in the middle when adoptions don't work out.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 7155.story