Woman freezes adopted children's bodies

Don't know why they wank so hard, since deep down Mafi and Powers do agree the system doesn't work.

When Mafi said the staff is overworked, Powers countered that private services ---which shouldn't be overworked, since they're small by design--- don't do their jobs anyway.

Seems to me that the root causes of both situations is lack of supervision. If you had proper goverment oversight, you'd know they don't have enough workers and that some of those workers are slacking off at the job.

Ceres wrote:

Don't know why they wank so hard, since deep down Mafi and Powers do agree the system doesn't work.

When Mafi said the staff is overworked, Powers countered that private services ---which shouldn't be overworked, since they're small by design--- don't do their jobs anyway.

Seems to me that the root causes of both situations is lack of supervision. If you had proper goverment oversight, you'd know they don't have enough workers and that some of those workers are slacking off at the job.

I think its also the lack of overhead. I don't care what the government says, children are not their priority. And private companies... I got nothing on them. I didnt even know they HAD private companies for that.

Jesus. wrote:

Ceres wrote:

Don't know why they wank so hard, since deep down Mafi and Powers do agree the system doesn't work.

When Mafi said the staff is overworked, Powers countered that private services ---which shouldn't be overworked, since they're small by design--- don't do their jobs anyway.

Seems to me that the root causes of both situations is lack of supervision. If you had proper goverment oversight, you'd know they don't have enough workers and that some of those workers are slacking off at the job.

I think its also the lack of overhead. I don't care what the government says, children are not their priority. And private companies... I got nothing on them. I didnt even know they HAD private companies for that.

They're still government regulated, I guess it's just because they're not run by the state they're considered private. I might be totally off though.

Okay, I have a question, and maybe someone answered it and I just missed the answer what with all the bullshit flying all over the place.

According to the headline and the story, these children were ADOPTED. They weren't foster kids, they were legally adopted. There's a difference. Now I know that the agencies tend to follow-up on adoptions for a certain period of time after it first occurs, but at some point, if no problems are apparent, don't they quit doing follow-up visits?

So my question is, were these kids actually adopted, or were they foster kids? Because if they were adopted, there would've been no reason for the state or local agencies to be following up on them. Unless someone complained (which apparently they did). In which case, they dropped the ball. But for me, the wording makes it unclear whether the woman had legally adopted these girls or they were just in foster care? I'd assumed foster care, because they mentioned how much money she got a month for them and I don't recall adoptions being funded (unless she was on ADC).

Obviously, I've missed something. Anyone want to fill me in on what I've missed (and I'd prefer it be someone who can explain it rationally and without using profanity every other word)?

Rabid Badger wrote:

Okay, I have a question, and maybe someone answered it and I just missed the answer what with all the bullshit flying all over the place.

According to the headline and the story, these children were ADOPTED. They weren't foster kids, they were legally adopted. There's a difference. Now I know that the agencies tend to follow-up on adoptions for a certain period of time after it first occurs, but at some point, if no problems are apparent, don't they quit doing follow-up visits?

So my question is, were these kids actually adopted, or were they foster kids? Because if they were adopted, there would've been no reason for the state or local agencies to be following up on them. Unless someone complained (which apparently they did). In which case, they dropped the ball. But for me, the wording makes it unclear whether the woman had legally adopted these girls or they were just in foster care? I'd assumed foster care, because they mentioned how much money she got a month for them and I don't recall adoptions being funded (unless she was on ADC).

Obviously, I've missed something. Anyone want to fill me in on what I've missed (and I'd prefer it be someone who can explain it rationally and without using profanity every other word)?

Nope, looks like you're quite right.

Mafiosa wrote:

Nope, looks like you're quite right.

Thank you. So the real fuck-up here was social services not following up on reports that the girls were being mistreated. The behavior couldn't have been present from the beginning if they were adopted, because one of the home visits would've surely caught it. So it's likely she didn't really start abusing the kids till after the adoption was formal. Her adoption of the younger girl may well have been her undoing, since that's when people started asking questions.

Ceres wrote:

Don't know why they wank so hard, since deep down Mafi and Powers do agree the system doesn't work.

When Mafi said the staff is overworked, Powers countered that private services ---which shouldn't be overworked, since they're small by design--- don't do their jobs anyway.

Seems to me that the root causes of both situations is lack of supervision. If you had proper goverment oversight, you'd know they don't have enough workers and that some of those workers are slacking off at the job.

Yes, it's clearly the lack of government managing it. Never mind that many of these agencies are run by the fucking government.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Ceres wrote:

Don't know why they wank so hard, since deep down Mafi and Powers do agree the system doesn't work.

When Mafi said the staff is overworked, Powers countered that private services ---which shouldn't be overworked, since they're small by design--- don't do their jobs anyway.

Seems to me that the root causes of both situations is lack of supervision. If you had proper goverment oversight, you'd know they don't have enough workers and that some of those workers are slacking off at the job.

Yes, it's clearly the lack of government managing it. Never mind that many of these agencies are run by the fucking government.

10 "Now that we Republicans are in power, we will drastically underfund and underman any form of social service because Kim Il-sung Ronald Reagan would have wanted it that way."

20 *Social Services fucks up all over the place because they don't have enough funding*

30 "Obviously, this is proof government can't do anything right. VOTE REPUBLICAN!"

40 GOTO 10

TheHermit wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Ceres wrote:

Don't know why they wank so hard, since deep down Mafi and Powers do agree the system doesn't work.

When Mafi said the staff is overworked, Powers countered that private services ---which shouldn't be overworked, since they're small by design--- don't do their jobs anyway.

Seems to me that the root causes of both situations is lack of supervision. If you had proper goverment oversight, you'd know they don't have enough workers and that some of those workers are slacking off at the job.

Yes, it's clearly the lack of government managing it. Never mind that many of these agencies are run by the fucking government.

10 "Now that we Republicans are in power, we will drastically underfund and underman any form of social service because Kim Il-sung Ronald Reagan would have wanted it that way."

20 *Social Services fucks up all over the place because they don't have enough funding*

30 "Obviously, this is proof government can't do anything right. VOTE REPUBLICAN!"

40 GOTO 10

1.) "Now that we liberals are in power, we will throw tremendous amounts of taxpayer money at any social ill hoping to get it to go away because that's how Karl Marx Franklin Roosevelt would have wanted it."

2.) *Nothing improves because the employees they've hired are still incompetent, still have WAY too much job security, half of the money just got lost, and another $200 million was spent on pork to buy the bill's way through the Senate*

3.) "Obviously this is proof that we need MOAR government. VOTE DEMOCRAT!!1!"

4.) ????

5.) PROFIT!!!

That is how you make a list you cockbiter. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

1.) "Now that we liberals are in power, we will throw tremendous amounts of taxpayer money at any social ill hoping to get it to go away because that's how Karl Marx Franklin Roosevelt would have wanted it."

This hasn't happened in thirty years, because any money that could have gone to social services has been wasted on tax cuts for the rich. Under Republicans, natch.

Quote :

2.) *Nothing improves because the employees they've hired are still incompetent, still have WAY too much job security, half of the money just got lost, and another $200 million was spent on pork to buy the bill's way through the Senate*

Half the money got lost because you hired corporations to do the government's job, and they do it half as efficiently for twice the money and twice the fraud.

Also, complaining about millions in "pork" when the federal budget is measured in trillions makes you sound like a moron. Seriously, you're getting bent out of shape over less than .1% of the budget? If you're serious about reigning in the budget, you've got to hit the big guns. Like defense spending, which has gone far past "cancerous" and now blots out the sun with its hideous girth.

Quote :

3.) "Obviously this is proof that we need MOAR government. VOTE DEMOCRAT!!1!"

Fails due to lack of supporting arguments.

Quote :

4.) ????

5.) PROFIT!!!

Yes, making a South Park reference in year of our lord two thousand and ten is the epitome of comedic wit. You sly fucker you.

Doesn't quite make up for being stunningly wrong, but thanks for playing anyway.

ETA: And you still haven't even touched the argument that Republicans intentionally sabotage government to prove their own point that government doesn't work, wheras they've only actually proven they are incompetent at governing.

Hermit wrote:

Fails due to lack of supporting arguments.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*Gasp*

AHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

O THE IRONY

TheHermit wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

1.) "Now that we liberals are in power, we will throw tremendous amounts of taxpayer money at any social ill hoping to get it to go away because that's how Karl Marx Franklin Roosevelt would have wanted it."

This hasn't happened in thirty years, because any money that could have gone to social services has been wasted on tax cuts for the rich. Under Republicans, natch.

And the wars. Don't forget that under Republicans the last in the naughts years we got tax cuts and wars. How dumb and self-destructive is that?

Extremely.

"Senators! Countrymen. Let us start a long and ill-planned war whilst simultaneously undercutting a major method of paying for, well, everything!"

(Actually I don't know exactly how much of the USA's budget comes from taxes, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a pretty significative amount.)

Dick Powers wrote:

White knighting is when you defend someone who does not deserve it.

As someone who has been fairly roundly slapped for white knighting in the past, you're completely wrong. White Knighting is when you presume to speak for a group of which you are not a member.

Quote :

If it weren't for "white nights" there would not be women's or civil rights.

OH YES IT WAS ALL DOWN TO THE BENEVOLENCE OF (WHITE) MEN GRACIOUSLY GRANTING US OUR RIGHTS AND WE DID NOTHING OURSELVES TO CHANGE IT

go fuck yourself

Dick Powers wrote:

HURRR ED IS TOTES LIKE A DICTIONARY U GAIS

Mafiosa wrote:

bawwww bawww black sheep cry a little more

Stealing this

InkWeaver wrote:

Yeah, that's a great way to get people to really open up and maybe help you with a good cause and see the horrors that can occur in social working and foster care - tell them to shut the fuck up when you think they're wrong!

REMEMBER EVERYONE IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO TAKE A GOOD CAUSE SERIOUSLY DON'T YOU DARE GET ANGRY EVEN IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS DEEPLY PERSONAL TO YOU AND HAS SERIOUSLY AFFECTED YOUR LIFE

HOW DARE YOU EXPRESS ANY NEGATIVE EMOTION DON'T YOU REALISE YOU'RE HURTING THE CAUSE

THINK OF THE CAUSE YOU SELFISH ASSHOLE DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE CAUSE


christ almighty Ink you're so fucking stupid sometimes I can hardly believe it

Dick Powers wrote:

Verandering wrote:

Okay, missing the point.
I was slamming your use of emotional stories.

Oh so first hand accounts cannot be use to make a point. I get it. The horror stories told by North Korean refugees, child sex slaves, former child soldiers of the ZANU-PF, SPLA and ULA, domestic, rape victims, and ect. should have no impact because they are mere sob stories. Give me a fucking break.

All totally and completely related to one another...
I'll fucking spell it out for you. You were trying to gain some stupid fucking brownie points about how fucking terrible and abusive foster systems are, while trying to squeeze the tears from stories of child abuse. I was pointing out that, WELL DERP, CHILD ABUSE SUCKS, now stop trying to pinhole sympathy of one large, terrible, general occurance into but one tiny part of it.

There's a larger problem here, but you don't give a flying fuck about all the others in a similar situation solely because you've managed to pin a great deal of blame on the wrong source.

Now stop pretending you're that stupidly dense.

Malganis wrote:

Verandering wrote:

I was slamming your use of emotional stories.

Technically, though, wasn't Mafi using an anecdotal 'emotional' story too? "My bff is going into social work and she is a caring person who wants to make a difference and she's not a cold-hearted monster, etc etc."?

Mafi wasn't trying to excuse her misguided rage with said emotional stories, therefore I don't have a problem with it.

Malganis wrote:

The way I see it, Dick makes a emotionally-fueled post that is angry (and rightfully so) - perhaps too generalizing, but it's hard not to when you've apparently seen so much flagrantly shitty misuse of authority as she claims to.

I definitely think the anger is understandable, but the blame game and raging a narrow view of the bigger matter at hand is symptom of letting shit get personal while you try to pass it off as political. Feelings are legitimate, actions are unwise.

Malganis wrote:

And honestly, I don't think that 'emotional stories' in and of themselves, are bad things.

Of course they aren't, depending on context. Dick was pissing in the pool.

Malganis wrote:

Let's face it, emotional stories are used ALL THE TIME in arguments or in news reporting. Why? Because they work. And if they are factual, that makes them all the more horrible or wonderful, depending on what emotions they play on.

Definitely should not be the crutch of any argument. News reporting is a different matter.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Verandering wrote:

Aside from word of mouth, they're the only things I go to for updates about the outside world.

Says the Dutchman posting in a news thread on the internet.

I--
Fuck. XD

Dick Powers wrote:

I was in the foster care system for years. I was pasted around between 3 homes during the time. My first foster family told me the day I arrived that I should not expect to be treated like their own child and that I was lucky to be aloud to stay in their home. I was not aloud to do anything with their permission this included getting a glass of water to drink, play with a toy, go outside, watch TV. One time I had gotten a stomach virus which caused me to stay up all night vomiting and the next morning I got wiped with an extension cord for keeping everyone up all night.

So, fuck you.

Mafiosa wrote:

whaaaah no one cares about my live journal posts which are of the same importance as that of a rape victim's account and are totally real and not bullshit that can't be backed up with proof you guys

whaaaaah

Would you like to see the burn scar I got when the son of my second foster family pushed me into a radiator because I wouldn't put out for him?

Your experiences do not excuse you from criticism when you act like an wild ball of whipping emotion.
I am the victim of parental abuse. "So, fuck you." I'm not splurging my personal shit all over anything that vaguely touches upon the subject, and I certainly am not looking for someone to blame.

Verandering wrote:

I am the victim of parental abuse. "So, fuck you." I'm not splurging my personal shit all over anything that vaguely touches upon the subject, and I certainly am not looking for someone to blame.

All victims of abuse react differently. There is no standard for how a victim should behave.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Verandering wrote:

I am the victim of parental abuse. "So, fuck you." I'm not splurging my personal shit all over anything that vaguely touches upon the subject, and I certainly am not looking for someone to blame.

All victims of abuse react differently. There is no standard for how a victim should behave.

Yes, you're right. I'm sorry. I'm describing a stage of recovery.

Cyberwulf wrote:

InkWeaver wrote:

Yeah, that's a great way to get people to really open up and maybe help you with a good cause and see the horrors that can occur in social working and foster care - tell them to shut the fuck up when you think they're wrong!

REMEMBER EVERYONE IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO TAKE A GOOD CAUSE SERIOUSLY DON'T YOU DARE GET ANGRY EVEN IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS DEEPLY PERSONAL TO YOU AND HAS SERIOUSLY AFFECTED YOUR LIFE

HOW DARE YOU EXPRESS ANY NEGATIVE EMOTION DON'T YOU REALISE YOU'RE HURTING THE CAUSE

THINK OF THE CAUSE YOU SELFISH ASSHOLE DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE CAUSE


christ almighty Ink you're so fucking stupid sometimes I can hardly believe it

Please, Cy, point out where I said not to get angry. I merely meant that maybe, explaining points from the beginning instead of jumping the gun and telling people to shut the fuck up would be a better way to enlighten folks.

e: Ah, wait, I did scold for making the discussion aggressive. I was wrong, that was stupid. Carry on.

InkWeaver wrote:

Please, Cy, point out where I said not to get angry. I merely meant that maybe, explaining points from the beginning instead of jumping the gun and telling people to shut the fuck up would be a better way to enlighten folks.

e: Ah, wait, I did scold for making the discussion aggressive. I was wrong, that was stupid. Carry on.

No, don't strike it out and apologize for it. You're right - being constantly seethingly angry and instantly telling people to STFU 'cuz they're stupid if they don't immediately agree with you does tend to turn people off, even if they might otherwise be receptive to your message. It also makes you a complete echo-chamber for your own, and no one else's, viewpoint (and tends to do the same to others as they get angry in reaction to your anger), which can be extremely damaging.

Cy is right in that anger can be shown (it's a valid emotion) when discussing something or debating, but constant childish tantrums and name-calling are not the same thing as righteous anger.

Malganis wrote:

being constantly seethingly angry and instantly telling people to STFU 'cuz they're stupid if they don't immediately agree with you does tend to turn people off, even if they might otherwise be receptive to your message.

Well, what an effective silencing technique. NOW NOW YOU'RE JUST GETTING HYSTERICAL DEAR, NO IT'S NOT BECAUSE I SAID SOMETHING MONUMENTALLY IGNORANT OR OFFENSIVE. I'M SO RECEPTIVE TO YOUR MESSAGE ABOUT HOW FUCKED UP THE ADOPTION SYSTEM IS THAT I'LL QUICKLY LOSE INTEREST IF YOU RAISE YOUR VOICE TO ME EVEN A LITTLE BIT SO DON'T YOU DARE TO EXPRESS ANGER AT ANYTHING I SAY.

Quote :

Cy is right in that anger can be shown (it's a valid emotion) when discussing something or debating, but constant childish tantrums and name-calling are not the same thing as righteous anger.

HA HA HA HA and who decides what's "righteous anger" and what's "childish tantrums"? You?

She's more reasonable than you, Ms. Wulf.

Funny Bunny wrote:

She's more reasonable than you, Ms. Wulf.

HOSHIT THAT'S ME TELT

Cyberwulf wrote:

christ almighty Ink you're so fucking stupid sometimes I can hardly believe it

Stop it, Wulfie. I understand where you're coming from, but Dick did drop the ball on this one. Everyone has the right to respond the way they want to respond, but with that right comes the responsibility of accepting the consequences. If you start screaming at people, they're going to get pissed off, no matter what right you have to scream. I'm certain Dick is intelligent enough to know that. And Inky is right--you can't state an opinion and then tell everyone else that theirs is worthless unless you want your opinion to be regarded as the same. Saying "Shut the fuck up, I refuse to look at things your way" brings understanding to a screeching halt.

That is what we're looking for here, right? Understanding? Acknowledging points from the opposition, letting them acknowledge ours, and coming to a more balanced and informed view all around as a result?

...well, why not, then?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Well, what an effective silencing technique. NOW NOW YOU'RE JUST GETTING HYSTERICAL DEAR, NO IT'S NOT BECAUSE I SAID SOMETHING MONUMENTALLY IGNORANT OR OFFENSIVE. I'M SO RECEPTIVE TO YOUR MESSAGE ABOUT HOW FUCKED UP THE ADOPTION SYSTEM IS THAT I'LL QUICKLY LOSE INTEREST IF YOU RAISE YOUR VOICE TO ME EVEN A LITTLE BIT SO DON'T YOU DARE TO EXPRESS ANGER AT ANYTHING I SAY.

Quote :

Cy is right in that anger can be shown (it's a valid emotion) when discussing something or debating, but constant childish tantrums and name-calling are not the same thing as righteous anger.

HA HA HA HA and who decides what's "righteous anger" and what's "childish tantrums"? You?

Are you making a conscious effort to be pissy and condescending no matter what you're saying and who you're saying it to, or does it just come naturally to you?

People are perfectly capable of deciding what is righteous anger and what is a childish tantrum for themselves and will act accordingly. Malganis was not claiming rights to anyone's judgments but her own.