OT: parenting and the santa barbara shooter

[NotCranky]

Now we have games for kids with “suicide mode” in them. WTF?

[zk]

[quote=Blogstar]
This guy was exposed to the worst of it the justifications when he was that tender sprout scaredy mentioned. Death of of other was basically mocked in the mainstream for years. Add that to the love of violence in entertainment and toys. Filters could easily get broken.

…

Treating the nurturing of children and killing people like they are joking matters is not good.[/quote]

I agree. Our violence-loving culture no doubt contributes to the level of violence in this country. Our society thinks a child seeing a woman’s nipple (not allowed) is worse for the him than outrageously violent video games where mass murder is the object (allowed).

wtf?

[Jazzman]

[quote=Blogstar]

What ever the answer to Mr. Obama’s question is ….I don’t think he is anything but capricious about dealing with it. Effectively capricious that is. Some many conflicting interests that everything effectively gets treated like a joke.

Treating the nurturing of children and killing people like they are joking matters is not good.[/quote]
I actually believe he thinks it is one of his biggest failings. In fact, I believe he even said so. The political will seems to have been there but was trounced by special interests. What is interesting is that now even the NRA has come out against some of its one supporters, probably because it realizes mass slayings are spreading like a disease— “exponentially” as Obama said—and that eventually it is going to backfire on them. Either that or they just ‘get it’ now. The more likely scenario is we won’t get a volte-face from them, but no doubt they’d be happier with a mass slaying every month as opposed to every week. I can’t believe I just said that.

[joec]

[quote=Jazzman][quote=Blogstar]

What ever the answer to Mr. Obama’s question is ….I don’t think he is anything but capricious about dealing with it. Effectively capricious that is. Some many conflicting interests that everything effectively gets treated like a joke.

Treating the nurturing of children and killing people like they are joking matters is not good.[/quote]
I actually believe he thinks it is one of his biggest failings. In fact, I believe he even said so. The political will seems to have been there but was trounced by special interests. What is interesting is that now even the NRA has come out against some of its one supporters, probably because it realizes mass slayings are spreading like a disease— “exponentially” as Obama said—and that eventually it is going to backfire on them. Either that or they just ‘get it’ now. The more likely scenario is we won’t get a volte-face from them, but no doubt they’d be happier with a mass slaying every month as opposed to every week. I can’t believe I just said that.[/quote]

I actually watched this whole interview with the Tumbler CEO I believe he was…It’s a decent watch and focused mostly on student loans, but he did talk a bit about the gun issue.

The “laughter” someone posted wasn’t a laugh IMO and it was not noticeable by me. He certainly wasn’t make light of the situation or think it’s “funny” that kids are being shot up.

I am not an Obama lover nor a democrat neither…but

Like a lot of things, I think all this stuff is trying to politicize this situation and is not helping anyone.

As Obama has said in the interview, it is sorta amazing that Australia had a mass shooting some time like maybe near 20 years ago and did somethings to make it harder to get guns. They haven’t had a shooting since.

It’s amazing how now, it’s almost like everyone in the US is desensitized to a shooting now since they occur nearly every week.

Every week, there is a new shooting and after a bit, no one cares until enough kids die or some major NRA support loses their own kids to this and will decide something should be done.

Again, the point is not to ban guns, but to make it at least harder for people who will carry these acts out to get guns.

The majority of these kids are < 30. All obviously had mental issues. Until people start giving a shit, we'll just see more copycat's who feel like shooting people and feeling like it gives them power and a way out to be in the media. Sadly, with it happening so much now, the killers don't even get their day in the sun. Honestly, I'd rather just throw myself in an Octagon and battle it out or take out my frustrations on some people I don't like, maybe it'd work out on these kids rather than shooting people.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=scaredyclassic]children are such tender sprouts. they vibrate with emotion and long for acceptance. to know someone is there and fighting for you. so important.

i made some pad thai ina box for my boys who are very large last night. put a big steaming plate of it infront of the 18 year old.

“my pa loves me” he said, reflexively.

elliot couldnt even walk into his da’ds house without getting a big pile of shit from his stepmother. bullshit.[/quote]

I’ve been “swamped” this past month and haven’t read this whole thread or Rodger’s manifesto, scaredy. But you just touched on the elephant in the room here. Rodger had divorced parents (from a young age?). It is not at all uncommon for children of divorced or single parents to be raised with one parent’s values in one household and another parent’s values in another household which are diametrically opposed to one another. (The same condition applies to children whose parents never married.) Sometimes kids of single parents must even go to churches with vastly different teachings every other weekend with each parent. Compound that confusion with one or both parents’ values being influenced by a subsequent spouse.

I believe that often the sole reason (or biggest reason) parents end up divorcing is due to both of them not seeing eye-to-eye on how to raise children. Children pick up on this very early (even while their warring parents still live “together”) and quickly learn how to play one parent against the other to get what they want.

Add to this phenomenon that in CA (and many other states), each parent typically gets 50% custody timeshare in a domestic court in the absence of their pending or current mental health or substance abuse rehab stint or their pending or current incarceration stint (either parent). Even in the presence of any or all three conditions (above), said affected parent losing child custody temporarily is free to come back to court after their release and prove themselves fit to eventually take back their entire 50% custody timeshare (or <50% if they desire less).

The moral here is, no matter how young one is when they are contemplating marriage and/or having children, one needs to pick the other parent of their future children very, very carefully ... or choose to drop their plans for marriage/having kids with a potentially unsuitable (for them) individual and wait to find another, more suitable co-parent if they still have time (women). If a prospective parent is running out of time and desires children, then choosing to adopt or use in-vitro fertilization where the father's identity is unknown to them is highly preferable to subjecting themselves to a long sentence of having to raise their kids with another parent whose values are diametrically opposed to their own.

I don't think we can blame Rodger's parents individually for his current mental illness anymore than we can blame the Colorado theatre shooter's parents (located here in SD and presumably still "together") for his mental illness. Each divorced or otherwise single parent likely does the best he/she can with their children during their respective child custody timeshares but have absolutely no control over what goes on with their kid(s) at the other parent’s house. Ex: if kids are lavished with material goods and complete freedom to come and go as they please while with one parent, they will often just end up “choosing” not to visit the parent of less means and/or who gives them less freedom as soon as they are old enough to legally do so. If the parent who is overly generous and lenient with the kids is ALSO the payor of child support (most likely scenario), then that parent will often push their kids to choose in court which parent they want to spend the most time with (or ALL their time with) as soon as they are old enough to be credible to the court or their court-appointed social worker.

I’ve seen a lot of domestic child custody cases in my day and have come to the conclusion that, in CA, whichever parent has the most earning power/assets eventually wins the kids hearts and minds over the other parent and that parent is usually the pay(OR) of child support. This unfortunate result is why the CA legislation on child support being solely tied to percentages of custody timeshare for each parent needs to be repealed or in the alternative, lined out and rewritten.

I believe the above consequences are ALSO why millions of “warring parents” in CA just end up turning indifferent to one another for the duration of child-rearing and move into separate rooms of the house until the last of their kids graduate from HS. This way, the family remains intact and the lesser-earning or non-earning parent will still have unfettered regular contact with their kids.

“Rodger” was no doubt a product of this “system.” It all works out okay IF the parents can continually, successfully and cohesively co-parent though the balance of their children’s minorities but I believe the families who can do this through all of their inevitable life changes are a distinct minority. This feat also requires each of the parents to prioritize security over all else and have the financial wherewithal to continue to live close in proximity to one another for a long duration to make it easier on their kid(s) to frequently move from home to home.

[CA renter]

Good post, BG.

[NotCranky]

Yes, interesting and terrifying ,BG. So many disaster scenarios.

A few months ago my 5th grader befriended a boy who, along with many siblings, is clearly being emotionally battered by his parents relationship and personal problems for all of his life.

We talk about it when he brings it up(my son). It seems like my kid is the confidant and shoulder to lean on. He talks about court battles going on and the divorce happened when he was 1!

So many kids could use some help. Scaredy, do you ever think of helping some kids out by raising foster kids? You have a lot to offer as far as I can tell . I think about it from time to time, the Central American refugee kid situation pushes me a bit. We are a bilingual household. I am afraid though. How would it affect my kids is the biggest concern. I think it would be fine for me….seems like very important work. My wife is very caring but also worried about changing the home front. By the time we are empty nesters we will be pretty old and probably have more excuses.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Blogstar]Yes, interesting and terrifying ,BG. So many disaster scenarios.

A few months ago my 5th grader befriended a boy who, along with many siblings, is clearly being emotionally battered by his parents relationship and personal problems for all of his life.

We talk about it when he brings it up(my son). It seems like my kid is the confidant and shoulder to lean on. He talks about court battles going on and the divorce happened when he was 1!

So many kids could use some help. Scaredy, do you ever think of helping some kids out by raising foster kids? You have a lot to offer as far as I can tell . I think about it from time to time, the Central American refugee kid situation pushes me a bit. We are a bilingual household. I am afraid though. How would it affect my kids is the biggest concern. I think it would be fine for me….seems like very important work. My wife is very caring but also worried about changing the home front. By the time we are empty nesters we will be pretty old and probably have more excuses.[/quote]

The odds of me being a foster parent are zero.
Too much risk; terrified of false molest allegations. I would not be a foster patent for a million dollars a year.

[scaredyclassic]

Further than that I have never and would never be alone at any time with anyone else’s kid ever, under age 16. I once gave a ride alone to my kids 16 year old male friend but only because I knew him many years and absolutely trusted him, his truthfulness and psychological stability. Basically I would assume any kid is a tremendous risk of false allegation unless I know the opposite is true. Unless I’ve known you personally in excess of five years, I will assume I don’t really know you at all.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]Yes, interesting and terrifying ,BG. So many disaster scenarios.

A few months ago my 5th grader befriended a boy who, along with many siblings, is clearly being emotionally battered by his parents relationship and personal problems for all of his life.

We talk about it when he brings it up(my son). It seems like my kid is the confidant and shoulder to lean on. He talks about court battles going on and the divorce happened when he was 1!

So many kids could use some help. Scaredy, do you ever think of helping some kids out by raising foster kids? You have a lot to offer as far as I can tell . I think about it from time to time, the Central American refugee kid situation pushes me a bit. We are a bilingual household. I am afraid though. How would it affect my kids is the biggest concern. I think it would be fine for me….seems like very important work. My wife is very caring but also worried about changing the home front. By the time we are empty nesters we will be pretty old and probably have more excuses.[/quote]

The odds of me being a foster parent are zero.
Too much risk; terrified of false molest allegations. I would not be a foster patent for a million dollars a year.[/quote]

Well, scaredy, you’re probably a little too “busy” anyway with your daily duties as champion of the underdog …

The last I heard, HHSA paid foster parents $540 month per child PLUS guaranteed MediCal coverage and free school breakfast/lunch for each foster child. Does any Pigg know if that payment has gone up?

In any case, one has to be a very special person with adequate bedrooms and a lot of patience and spare time on their hands to take on the challenging role of foster parenting, imho.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=scaredyclassic]children are such tender sprouts. they vibrate with emotion and long for acceptance. to know someone is there and fighting for you. so important.

i made some pad thai ina box for my boys who are very large last night. put a big steaming plate of it infront of the 18 year old.

“my pa loves me” he said, reflexively.

elliot couldnt even walk into his da’ds house without getting a big pile of shit from his stepmother. bullshit.[/quote]

Some kids need more love than others, sure.

Did anyone consider that too much love can be detrimental and cause needy, dysfunctional kids?

Some kids get sent to boarding academy and become very strong adults ready to conquer the world.

Maybe Elliot didn’t need more love and coddling but needed to learn how to handle life, despite his mental weaknesses. We all have weaknesses and neurosis to overcome in order to thrive. The people who have fewer weaknesses are just luckier.

Elliot seemed to tie his well-being to possessing luxury products and having a hot girlfriend. The problem is that he wasn’t equipped to go out and get what he wanted.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Further than that I have never and would never be alone at any time with anyone else’s kid ever, under age 16. I once gave a ride alone to my kids 16 year old male friend but only because I knew him many years and absolutely trusted him, his truthfulness and psychological stability. Basically I would assume any kid is a tremendous risk of false allegation unless I know the opposite is true. Unless I’ve known you personally in excess of five years, I will assume I don’t really know you at all.[/quote]

I don’t blame you, scaredy. You, too, have seen a lot in your day.

[NotCranky]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=scaredyclassic]Further than that I have never and would never be alone at any time with anyone else’s kid ever, under age 16. I once gave a ride alone to my kids 16 year old male friend but only because I knew him many years and absolutely trusted him, his truthfulness and psychological stability. Basically I would assume any kid is a tremendous risk of false allegation unless I know the opposite is true. Unless I’ve known you personally in excess of five years, I will assume I don’t really know you at all.[/quote]

I don’t blame you, scaredy. You, too, have seen a lot in your day.[/quote]

I do believe, that you and your wife, as perceived through the internet anyway, would have raised Elliot Rodgers to have average or less than average problems.

[NotCranky]

I wouldn’t want to take any money for foster care. That would ruin it. Then again it would be expensive. It seems like mostly single mothers who need money do it? Is that right BG? When I was in foster care it was a single black woman and she was doing a good job. Just helping a refugee or two , perhaps orphaned or a kid who needed a stable environment to finish high school that seems doable. But yeah, it’s scary.

I am proud of my boy for being there for this kid from a broken home. Most of the kids in the school are from pretty stable homes , both single parent and two parent homes but apparently stable., so he is a bit of an oddity with his sad stories and shyness, headaches and whatnot, and many kids would shun him.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=scaredyclassic]children are such tender sprouts. they vibrate with emotion and long for acceptance. to know someone is there and fighting for you. so important.

i made some pad thai ina box for my boys who are very large last night. put a big steaming plate of it infront of the 18 year old.

“my pa loves me” he said, reflexively.

elliot couldnt even walk into his da’ds house without getting a big pile of shit from his stepmother. bullshit.[/quote]

Some kids need more love than others, sure.

Did anyone consider that too much love can be detrimental and cause needy, dysfunctional kids?

Some kids get sent to boarding academy and become very strong adults ready to conquer the world.

Maybe Elliot didn’t need more love and coddling but needed to learn how to handle life, despite his mental weaknesses. We all have weaknesses and neurosis to overcome in order to thrive. The people who have fewer weaknesses are just luckier.

Elliot seemed to tie his well-being to possessing luxury products and having a hot girlfriend. The problem is that he wasn’t equipped to go out and get what he wanted.[/quote]

Perhaps for some but no boarding school, not even hogwarts would’ve worked for elliot.

[Author]

Posts