A sad story about terrible parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that woman who lost her three children in and parents in Connecticut was a bad parent. How dare she not have working fire alarms in the house.

Why exactly does she get sympathy, and she should, when the woman in this story experienced a similar tragedy receive scorn and condemnation from a bunch of lily privileged shrews in DC metro area.

You sound like a racist nutcase.

I'm a PP in this thread, and I'm not white, and definitely not 'privileged'. Being a minority doesn't mean that you get a free pass when you leave your 4 young children in a trailer alone. I don't care what your color/class is - that's just negligent.

No, not a racist and definitely not a nutcase. I don't give a flying crap whether you are white or not. If you cannot find any sympathy for a parent who has just lost four children, something is missing in your DNA, regardless of what color or race you check in the box. Nobody said give the woman a free pass, but you don't know all the facts and are ready to crucify the woman. She may or may not be negligent, but was the woman in Connecticut any less negligent for housing her children in a house that was later to be found not secure. Did you find sympathy for her. I did, for she was a parent who had just lost three of her children. I am simply pointing out the inconsistencies of the DCUM mob, and how some people are more worthy than others. Is it a class issue. A race issue. I don't know, but for you perhaps it is a class issue.

Obviously you do care about race. Or, what else did you mean by 'lily privileged shrews'? Were you talking about the Hispanic population on DCUM? I doubt it.

This is not a class issue or a race issue. I don't care if you're rich/poor/black/white/purple - you do not leave your kids home ALONE overnight. That's all there is to it. The kids are your responsibility. She left her kids alone at home unable to defend themselves. That was a horrible decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that woman who lost her three children in and parents in Connecticut was a bad parent. How dare she not have working fire alarms in the house.

I don't know much about this CT story. Did the mom leave her 3 kids unattended in the house? If so, she doesn't deserve much sympathy. Any mom who has left her kids unattended several times is acting irresponsibly.

No, she just had all the fire alarms disconnected while her family slept in the home. So, in theory, the children were left unprotected in case of a fire. the children perished. The parents perished. The mother is left grief stricken. I would think that the mother in Lousiana is also grief stricken. You people are freaking talking about how many sexual partners this woman has had in her life. For all you know, it has only been three. I really don't care if it has been thirty. Women on DCUM has had that many from freshmen to senior year of college. I guess I defend the mom because regardless of the circumstances, she lost her babies. And that is what is missing from this thread. It is full of self-righteous sanctimonious shrews.

She left her kids ALONE at night. And, according to the article, this has happened before. Her 2 year old was found by a neighbor walking the streets alone at midnight another time.

I don't care how many men she's slept with, but she was negligent here. This woman had a history of leaving her kids at home alone. She should have had her kids taken away the first time that happened.

PP, you are quoting me. If the focus of this thread had stayed on point, I would agree with you. Why is this woman's sexual history relevant to whether or not she was negligent in protecting her children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No, not a racist and definitely not a nutcase. I don't give a flying crap whether you are white or not. If you cannot find any sympathy for a parent who has just lost four children, something is missing in your DNA, regardless of what color or race you check in the box. Nobody said give the woman a free pass, but you don't know all the facts and are ready to crucify the woman. She may or may not be negligent, but was the woman in Connecticut any less negligent for housing her children in a house that was later to be found not secure. Did you find sympathy for her. I did, for she was a parent who had just lost three of her children. I am simply pointing out the inconsistencies of the DCUM mob, and how some people are more worthy than others. Is it a class issue. A race issue. I don't know, but for you perhaps it is a class issue.

Nobody has said that the kids were not worthy of sympathy. The consensus of this thread is that it's horrible that these 4 kids had to die because of their mom's negligence and the fact that she made some terrible decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that woman who lost her three children in and parents in Connecticut was a bad parent. How dare she not have working fire alarms in the house.

I don't know much about this CT story. Did the mom leave her 3 kids unattended in the house? If so, she doesn't deserve much sympathy. Any mom who has left her kids unattended several times is acting irresponsibly.

No, she just had all the fire alarms disconnected while her family slept in the home. So, in theory, the children were left unprotected in case of a fire. the children perished. The parents perished. The mother is left grief stricken. I would think that the mother in Lousiana is also grief stricken. You people are freaking talking about how many sexual partners this woman has had in her life. For all you know, it has only been three. I really don't care if it has been thirty. Women on DCUM has had that many from freshmen to senior year of college. I guess I defend the mom because regardless of the circumstances, she lost her babies. And that is what is missing from this thread. It is full of self-righteous sanctimonious shrews.

She left her kids ALONE at night. And, according to the article, this has happened before. Her 2 year old was found by a neighbor walking the streets alone at midnight another time.

I don't care how many men she's slept with, but she was negligent here. This woman had a history of leaving her kids at home alone. She should have had her kids taken away the first time that happened.

PP, you are quoting me. If the focus of this thread had stayed on point, I would agree with you. Why is this woman's sexual history relevant to whether or not she was negligent in protecting her children.

ITA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that woman who lost her three children in and parents in Connecticut was a bad parent. How dare she not have working fire alarms in the house.

Why exactly does she get sympathy, and she should, when the woman in this story experienced a similar tragedy receive scorn and condemnation from a bunch of lily privileged shrews in DC metro area.

You sound like a racist nutcase.

I'm a PP in this thread, and I'm not white, and definitely not 'privileged'. Being a minority doesn't mean that you get a free pass when you leave your 4 young children in a trailer alone. I don't care what your color/class is - that's just negligent.

No, not a racist and definitely not a nutcase. I don't give a flying crap whether you are white or not. If you cannot find any sympathy for a parent who has just lost four children, something is missing in your DNA, regardless of what color or race you check in the box. Nobody said give the woman a free pass, but you don't know all the facts and are ready to crucify the woman. She may or may not be negligent, but was the woman in Connecticut any less negligent for housing her children in a house that was later to be found not secure. Did you find sympathy for her. I did, for she was a parent who had just lost three of her children. I am simply pointing out the inconsistencies of the DCUM mob, and how some people are more worthy than others. Is it a class issue. A race issue. I don't know, but for you perhaps it is a class issue.

Obviously you do care about race. Or, what else did you mean by 'lily privileged shrews'? Were you talking about the Hispanic population on DCUM? I doubt it.

This is not a class issue or a race issue. I don't care if you're rich/poor/black/white/purple - you do not leave your kids home ALONE overnight. That's all there is to it. The kids are your responsibility. She left her kids alone at home unable to defend themselves. That was a horrible decision.

The vast majority of DCUM is privileged, regardless of race. No, it is not all about race, but for you it is now appearing to be so. This is class warfare missed with perceived racism. Funny, I don't know the woman's race, but you apparently seem to know. You, and others, automatically assumed she was Black. Is it because her name is Shaqueta. That could be a give away, but there was a white woman in my graduate class with the name of Lakeisha. I give Shaqueta, Lakeisha, Jane, Morgan, Sui Lin all the benefit of the doubt, until proven otherwise. People make horrible decisions everyday. Some are fatal.

It is also interesting how you refuse to address the similarities of negligence in the two cases, but readily throw out racism. LOL, people always do that to deflect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, not a racist and definitely not a nutcase. I don't give a flying crap whether you are white or not. If you cannot find any sympathy for a parent who has just lost four children, something is missing in your DNA, regardless of what color or race you check in the box. Nobody said give the woman a free pass, but you don't know all the facts and are ready to crucify the woman. She may or may not be negligent, but was the woman in Connecticut any less negligent for housing her children in a house that was later to be found not secure. Did you find sympathy for her. I did, for she was a parent who had just lost three of her children. I am simply pointing out the inconsistencies of the DCUM mob, and how some people are more worthy than others. Is it a class issue. A race issue. I don't know, but for you perhaps it is a class issue.

Nobody has said that the kids were not worthy of sympathy. The consensus of this thread is that it's horrible that these 4 kids had to die because of their mom's negligence and the fact that she made some terrible decisions.

That is where you are incorrect. I invite you to go back and read the awful posts in this thread. Most of the attention has been on the number of sexual partners, the speculation of the number of partners, abstinence versus birth control, and the age in which she gave birth to her first child.

[Anonymous]

of course her sexual history is fair game. she had 5 kids with no father and lives in a trailer and has had neighbors complain about leaving her kids alone and now they are dead and she is arrested for negligent homicide!

you don't think her decisions have been incredibly irresponsible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:]

Hate to disappoint. I have two graduate degrees, and I doubt you have actually been rocked with great sex. Yes, you should continue with your rabbit, or whatever is used to compensate for your lack thereof.

i'm the abstinence PP, also have two graduate degrees, and love great (and even not so great) sex. I have even been rocked by it, I suppose. But I never had unprotected sex so many times as to produce five children with one to five different men who likely had no intention of being fathers.

Furthermore, i fail to see the connection between suggesting extreme measures to prevent pregnancies (if that's how you view abstinence, personally i think is is rather reasonable) and my frigidity (or not). But I guess your graduate degrees must be fancier than mine, or something.

[Anonymous]

Apparently, there is something wrong with this lady. We know nothing about her past! Alot of women that sleep around have been molested as young children. Some of them never grew up in a loving home so they sleep with men to feel loved. No ones know what she has been through in her life. So why do you all just pray that she gets that help that she needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:of course her sexual history is fair game. she had 5 kids with no father and lives in a trailer and has had neighbors complain about leaving her kids alone and now they are dead and she is arrested for negligent homicide!

you don't think her decisions have been incredibly irresponsible?

No, her sexual history is not fair game. Yes, leaving her children alone is fair game. Would it have made a difference if she had one sexual partner, five children, and still left them home alone. Would the children be any deader? How, exactly does her sexaul history become relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:]

Hate to disappoint. I have two graduate degrees, and I doubt you have actually been rocked with great sex. Yes, you should continue with your rabbit, or whatever is used to compensate for your lack thereof.

i'm the abstinence PP, also have two graduate degrees, and love great (and even not so great) sex. I have even been rocked by it, I suppose. But I never had unprotected sex so many times as to produce five children with one to five different men who likely had no intention of being fathers.

Furthermore, i fail to see the connection between suggesting extreme measures to prevent pregnancies (if that's how you view abstinence, personally i think is is rather reasonable) and my frigidity (or not). But I guess your graduate degrees must be fancier than mine, or something.

Your quote is out of context. Therefore, a response is not necessary.

[Anonymous]

No, her sexual history is not fair game. Yes, leaving her children alone is fair game.

I 100 percent agree. Yes, the focus on her sexual history is completely inappropriate. But to me, so is suggesting that it is ok that she left these young children alone. They deserved better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:of course her sexual history is fair game. she had 5 kids with no father and lives in a trailer and has had neighbors complain about leaving her kids alone and now they are dead and she is arrested for negligent homicide!

you don't think her decisions have been incredibly irresponsible?

No, her sexual history is not fair game. Yes, leaving her children alone is fair game. Would it have made a difference if she had one sexual partner, five children, and still left them home alone. Would the children be any deader? How, exactly does her sexaul history become relevant.

My apologies. Any less dead, deceased, departed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:of course her sexual history is fair game. she had 5 kids with no father and lives in a trailer and has had neighbors complain about leaving her kids alone and now they are dead and she is arrested for negligent homicide!

you don't think her decisions have been incredibly irresponsible?

No, her sexual history is not fair game. Yes, leaving her children alone is fair game. Would it have made a difference if she had one sexual partner, five children, and still left them home alone. Would the children be any deader? How, exactly does her sexaul history become relevant.

it is relevant because it is an extreme example of her incredible irresponsibility in life and in decision making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:of course her sexual history is fair game. she had 5 kids with no father and lives in a trailer and has had neighbors complain about leaving her kids alone and now they are dead and she is arrested for negligent homicide!

you don't think her decisions have been incredibly irresponsible?

No, her sexual history is not fair game. Yes, leaving her children alone is fair game. Would it have made a difference if she had one sexual partner, five children, and still left them home alone. Would the children be any deader? How, exactly does her sexaul history become relevant.

People were asking why she should be the only one held accountable for leaving the kids alone, why not the father? Looking at the last names of the children listed, it appears there were multiple fathers...therefore, it IS relevant. WHICH father should be held accountable? All of them?