That is exactly what it meant. If this woman passes her psych evaluation, then she is to blame. If not, then the baby’s death was just a horrible accident that may not have been preventable. All too often though, someone in a similar situation will say “I knew that Joe was unstable/abusive to the child but I never thought he’d kill her. He loved the baby”. I don’t want mentally ill people being harrassed, but their family and friends shouldn’t overlook/explain away signals that something isn’t right. That has nothing to do with the government or failed social outreach programs or liberals.
I think that’s basically the case. I think that’s where discussions like this actually come from. The first thing people want to know is, “How could something like this have happened?” When the answer is “Because the mother is off her rocker,” there’s no one concrete to blame…so the question becomes “How could something like this have been allowed to happen?” What should be genuine concern for the factors leading to the tragedy becomes a witch hunt for someone to pin the Blame!!! on. The fact that there isn’t one single thing on which “blame” can be put makes the whole thing even muddier.
But What Of The Social Programs??!?!!
And this is why I took issue with Lib’s post - I thought it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the subject. I didn’t think the OP was saying, “Social Services should have jackbooted their way in and taken that baby at the first whisper!” I think he was saying “Why weren’t her family and neighbors watching her extra carefully, knowing that there were potential problems?” It didn’t seem (to me) to be a politically charged issue in the first place.
FOR GOD’S SAKE, WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
Oh, wait…
Well, my goodness! That just entirely invalidates my statement.
Or maybe just requires a trivial amendment: it’s antithetical to the spirit of honest debate. And last I checked, the Pit was a debate forum, just with less restrictive rules than your usual stomping ground in GD, where you originally introduced this technique and raised it to the art form you have made it into.
Let me explain about message boards, Lib. You get to speak your piece, but so does everyone else. Which means you have no reasonable expectation of speaking your piece and then being left alone, which means it’s pretty dumb to go blaming those who don’t let your words go unchallenged.
You’ve been a regular at this message board since 1999. One would think you’d have figured this out by now.
Hey Lib, how many times have I said diddly to you in the past year? I see your posts all the time, but I leave it to newer posters to deal with you. They generally do a pretty good job.
Nah, I was pointed to this thread from somewhere else, and decided to offer some historical perspective on you. Having done that, I’m out of here again.
Admittedly, you have always counted on the visceral reactions of others to your cryptic-yet-infuriating posts to gain a platform and an audience for your views. In another time, I frequently fell for the technique. I think it’s a net positive to point out what you are doing (rather than react to it), so that others may more quickly recognize it and sidestep it.
Since you’ve said you want other people to let you speak your piece and leave you alone, hopefully this will help you achieve that goal, whether it’s reasonable or not.
RTFirefly, don’t forget the part where you admire AlQaeda!
Well then, quitcher bitchin. If five or ten of you want to come in here and make me into some big deal, don’t be surprised when the thread derails. You’re like the guy who shoves a knife up his butt and doesn’t understand why his ass is bleeding.
And you’re the guy who walks up to the guy with a bleeding ass and blames it on leftists.
And the beat goes on… Next?
I don’t get the whole “next” part, but my question remains unanswered.
Yes, perhaos I worded my response poorly. I think Lib’s point is that there are situations where blame cannot be attributed to anyone. It was a terrible occurence, which nobody could have prevented.
Who’s bitching? I’m just saying to the others, “This guy has a standard technique for hijacking threads. He’s been perfecting it for years. Don’t fall for it.”
I don’t really care what you think about that, even if (by your own logic) you should appreciate my assist. I’ve long since given up expecting you to be logical.
I’m amused by your analogy, though. Let me try one of my own: you’re running a con game, and when I point that out, you say it’s all the fault of the marks who fell for your con. I admire your adroit dodge of personal responsibility.
At any rate, this here is my hijack now, and I take full responsibility: this seems like as good a place as any to analyze and discuss your con, rather than fall for it. The best place for fighting ignorance is always here and now.