Mother-to-be deemed 'too stupid' to raise child or marry fiance

Theaphelia wrote:

Oh seriously fuck social services. This is the same social services who would deny a struggling family food stamps if they make something like $100 over the cutoff limit, would gladly reunite a child with their drug-addicted prostitute neglectful mother if she makes false promises to be good, and try to refuse custody of a child to obviously caring grandparents because of some stupid misdemeanor charges against one of them that were DROPPED THIRTY YEARS AGO. And then they'll sit there with their stony fucking faces while you cry and beg for them to do something, then claim they're doing "what's best for the child."

TL;DR: Social services are a bunch of insensitive fucknuggets who I'm pretty sure get off on people's suffering.

Oh excuse the fuck outta me and my social worker mother. She's just so attached to her toddler dungeon, you know? Oops, time to top off the boiling oil!

Fuck you and fuck your galling, ignorant generalizations.

Theaphelia wrote:

TL;DR: Social services are a bunch of insensitive fucknuggets who I'm pretty sure get off on people's suffering.

DRAT THOSE SOCIAL WORKERS
THEY DRIVE ME TO DRINK

Yeah, helping people recover from mental illness and dealing with genuine child abuse cases are clearly a front for the EVUL BABY-STEALING OPERATION BUREAUCRACY EUGENICS BLARRRGH.

Fucking hell.

Zeiss Manifold wrote:

Theaphelia wrote:

TL;DR: Social services are a bunch of insensitive fucknuggets who I'm pretty sure get off on people's suffering.

DRAT THOSE SOCIAL WORKERS
THEY DRIVE ME TO DRINK

Yeah, helping people recover from mental illness and dealing with genuine child abuse cases are clearly a front for the EVUL BABY-STEALING OPERATION BUREAUCRACY EUGENICS BLARRRGH.

Fucking hell.

I like the fact that this mentality gets passed to cops and teachers on here too. RRRRAAAAGGGH AUTHORITY FIGURES ARE BAAAAD

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Theaphelia wrote:

Oh seriously fuck social services. This is the same social services who would deny a struggling family food stamps if they make something like $100 over the cutoff limit, would gladly reunite a child with their drug-addicted prostitute neglectful mother if she makes false promises to be good, and try to refuse custody of a child to obviously caring grandparents because of some stupid misdemeanor charges against one of them that were DROPPED THIRTY YEARS AGO. And then they'll sit there with their stony fucking faces while you cry and beg for them to do something, then claim they're doing "what's best for the child."

TL;DR: Social services are a bunch of insensitive fucknuggets who I'm pretty sure get off on people's suffering.

Internet libertarian spotted!

Delcat wrote:

Theaphelia wrote:

Oh seriously fuck social services. This is the same social services who would deny a struggling family food stamps if they make something like $100 over the cutoff limit, would gladly reunite a child with their drug-addicted prostitute neglectful mother if she makes false promises to be good, and try to refuse custody of a child to obviously caring grandparents because of some stupid misdemeanor charges against one of them that were DROPPED THIRTY YEARS AGO. And then they'll sit there with their stony fucking faces while you cry and beg for them to do something, then claim they're doing "what's best for the child."

TL;DR: Social services are a bunch of insensitive fucknuggets who I'm pretty sure get off on people's suffering.

Oh excuse the fuck outta me and my social worker mother. She's just so attached to her toddler dungeon, you know? Oops, time to top off the boiling oil!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Thanks for that.

Wandering Critic wrote:

EileenK98 wrote:

I hate how the article uses the word "stupid". She is not stupid, she is intellectually disabled. She should not be put in the same category as assholes who leave their cigarettes out for their two-year-old to play with, and then beat them to death for it.

I have to disagree. She is (or may be, since they give us no usable information) stupid. Assholes who leave their cigarettes out and then beat their 2-year-old to death are not stupid; they're murderous sons of bitches. "Stupid" is lacking intelligence; "murderous son of a bitch" is lacking humanity.

Stupid is a perfectly valid word, meaning "not smart". I prefer it to whatever euphemism is in fashion this year, if for no better reason than I don't have to keep learning new ones or risk being told that whatever was last year's proper euphemism is politically incorrect this year.

One has to wonder what word should apply to someone who complains that a word isn't being used as an insult.

The word 'stupid' as it is commonly used now has derogatory connotations and is an insult. If someone were to call someone else 'stupid', it's not likely that it would be used -- or understood -- as a disinterested statement on that person's IQ, it would more likely be used and construed as a personal insult.

I do think that the paper using the term 'too stupid' was very wrong, given the extremely negative and insulting connotations that the word 'stupid' has, and also given that we don't even know what the girl's learning difficulties are. It's making a bad situation even more humiliating for her and her loved ones.

Plus, are people with learning difficulties really automatically 'stupid'? That's just demeaning.

Delcat wrote:

Oh excuse the fuck outta me and my social worker mother. She's just so attached to her toddler dungeon, you know? Oops, time to top off the boiling oil!

Fuck you and fuck your galling, ignorant generalizations.

Good for your mom. I swear to God, our shitnugget social worker actually ROLLED HER EYES at us when we told her we'd been awarded custody. As for me being ignorant, why don't you go back and read what we went through? And now they're trying to take this woman's child away, because THEY deem her an idiot. They don't even want to give her a chance.

Clearly, I'm cynical and angry for absolutely NO REASON at all.

Edited: to remove the more sensitive stuff that's really nobody's business.

Theaphelia wrote:

Good for your mom. I swear to God, our shitnugget social worker actually ROLLED HER EYES at us when we told her we'd been awarded custody. As for me being ignorant, why don't you go back and read what we went through? And now they're trying to take this woman's child away, because THEY deem her an idiot. They don't even want to give her a chance. But get this one: my stepsister (the negligent mother) has had another child. Despite her record of doing drugs, prostitution, and child negligence (and being unmarried and having disabilities!), she has been allowed to keep her third baby, with "close supervision".

Clearly, I'm cynical and angry for absolutely NO REASON at all.

Your experience =/= every experience or universal truth, ever. I feel for you, yes, but you could have just gotten a different social worker. It's not that hard and there are many out there who are pretty nice.

Theaphelia wrote:

Clearly, I'm cynical and angry for absolutely NO REASON at all.

The thing about having you head stuck up your ass for a reason, is... your head is still stuck up your ass.

Point taken. Sorry. Here's your thread back now.

Wandering Critic wrote:

I prefer it to whatever euphemism is in fashion this year, if for no better reason than I don't have to keep learning new ones or risk being told that whatever was last year's proper euphemism is politically incorrect this year.

Whinging about "political correctness" means you lose all credibility.

And this is precisely the reason that I do not agree with giving out licenses to procreate. Oh sure, it'll start out "innocently" enough trying to eradicate certain genetic conditions, but then cases like this will pop up.

Honestly, where is the line drawn?

vade wrote:

And this is precisely the reason that I do not agree with giving out licenses to procreate. Oh sure, it'll start out "innocently" enough trying to eradicate certain genetic conditions, but then cases like this will pop up.

vade wrote:

Oh sure, it'll start out "innocently" enough trying to eradicate certain genetic conditions

vade wrote:

trying to eradicate certain genetic conditions

I think you missed the point of procreation as a privilege there, hombre.

You're all wrong.

Sloth wrote:

You're all wrong.

:crap:

Malganis wrote:

EileenK98 wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Next thing you know, they'll be sterilising people beneath a certain IQ.

Ssh! Don't give them any ideas!

It's not like eugenics is a new idea. Sterilizing those who were deemed unworthy or unfit to reproduce has already been done in America and Europe in decades past.

*is going to be screamed at for this*

I could see that happening for people with such low IQ's that they can't take care of themselves. Though I don't know if I'd support that or not.

This? Doesn't seem right though I'm holding back my rage until I see how bad her problems are.

Thanos6 wrote:

...is it wrong that I might agree with this if I knew how bad her learning difficulties were?

Well clearly her difficulties are not such that she doesn't understand that her child will be taken away from her. The girl is not brain-dead and seems aware enough of the situation that it is causing her considerable distress.

That being said though, there's something off here. Why is a twenty-five year old dating a seventeen year old, to begin with? An eight-year difference is a big deal when you're in your teens or twenties, and I think it makes the whole situation at least somewhat suspect. Something smells a bit off here, and I can't blame social services for being a bit wary.

However, that isn't me saying I think they're taking the correct course of action. I understand that the guy has no rights to the child because they're not married, but why couldn't the girl's grandparents take care of the baby? That's the part that baffles me; presumably, her grandparents brought up her parents and so have, in theory, proven themselves competent at raising children.

bleachedblackcat wrote:

Malganis wrote:

EileenK98 wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Next thing you know, they'll be sterilising people beneath a certain IQ.

Ssh! Don't give them any ideas!

It's not like eugenics is a new idea. Sterilizing those who were deemed unworthy or unfit to reproduce has already been done in America and Europe in decades past.

*is going to be screamed at for this*

I could see that happening for people with such low IQ's that they can't take care of themselves. Though I don't know if I'd support that or not.

This? Doesn't seem right though I'm holding back my rage until I see how bad her problems are.

I'm a real Charles Davenport, myself. I believe that everyone with inferior quality muttonchops should be euthanized.

A womaxxn should never be forced to care for a child she doesn't want. And who wants an obnoxious, squealing infant taking all their time? The answer: no sane person. That's why all pro-lifers are mexxn.

Delcat wrote:

Theaphelia wrote:

Oh seriously fuck social services. This is the same social services who would deny a struggling family food stamps if they make something like $100 over the cutoff limit, would gladly reunite a child with their drug-addicted prostitute neglectful mother if she makes false promises to be good, and try to refuse custody of a child to obviously caring grandparents because of some stupid misdemeanor charges against one of them that were DROPPED THIRTY YEARS AGO. And then they'll sit there with their stony fucking faces while you cry and beg for them to do something, then claim they're doing "what's best for the child."

TL;DR: Social services are a bunch of insensitive fucknuggets who I'm pretty sure get off on people's suffering.

Oh excuse the fuck outta me and my social worker mother. She's just so attached to her toddler dungeon, you know? Oops, time to top off the boiling oil!

Fuck you and fuck your galling, ignorant generalizations.

Just because there might be a good football player or two on the St. Louis Rams doesn't make the Rams a good football team you stupid fuck.

Next.

Mally wrote:

Plus, are people with learning difficulties really automatically 'stupid'? That's just demeaning.

Uh, yes? I mean, EXACTLY that is the case. People with learning disabilities are stupid, as they lack the mental capacity of someone who isn't retarded.

Next.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Whinging about "political correctness" means you lose all credibility.

Saying WC was making a "High pitched, ringing sound" when he clearly wasn't makes you lose the credibility you didn't have to begin with.

Next.

Waffy wrote:

And who wants an obnoxious, squealing infant taking all their time? The answer: no sane person.

Even the lamest, most batshit trolls can occasionally stumble upon a small chunk of win.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Just because there might be a good football player or two on the St. Louis Rams doesn't make the Rams a good football team you stupid fuck.

Fallacy by analogy. Bzzzt, sorry, you lose.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Uh, yes? I mean, EXACTLY that is the case. People with learning disabilities are stupid, as they lack the mental capacity of someone who isn't retarded.

Nope. What you're talking about is mentally disabled; while learning disability is completely different and refers to trouble learning, processing and recalling information, which is manageable with specifically built study regimens. Unlike the mentally incapacitated moron that is you, who has no hope of recovering.

Sorry, you don't get to talk shit about smarter people than you.

Remember the awesome power of selective reporting. "Social Worker Does Job Well" isn't news, whereas you can get two or three days worth of headlines out of "Social Worker Fucks Up Completely" if you spin it right.

The problem with euphemisms (since Cyberwulf got all upset about me saying "politically correct") is you're never entirely sure what they mean. "Learning disabilities" might mean something like dyslexia, and the person could be brilliant once they get information through that bottleneck. Or it could mean plain old stupid. You're never certain, because the whole point of a euphemism is that it's meant to conceal and hint at the meaning. But it doesn't change anything. Saying "retarded", or "slow", or "special", or "exceptional", or "intellectually challenged", or "differently abled", or whatever the euphemism du jour is, doesn't make anyone smarter. Someone with a subnormal IQ isn't smart, they know they're not smart, and you could call them Einstein and they'd still know they're not smart. No matter what word you use, they won't be smart. Rearranging words doesn't solve problems; it just makes the people who are inventing euphemisms feel better, or at least relieves their self-imposed feelings of guilt for not being one of the people they pity.

This crap is a legitimate and ongoing problem. It obscures meaning and muddles language. It pretends that problems can be solved by using different names for them. It establishes arbitrary shibboleths. In some cases it's a power thing. Being able to say "you can't use that word!" to someone is a form of power over them; you're controlling their speech. Sometimes people are encouraged to take offense at things not meant to be offensive (the word "picnic", for instance) as a means of acquiring or wielding that power, like a king who punishes someone for addressing him as "your highness" instead of "your majesty". It gives people another way to not get along, and we have enough of those already.

Yet in the end, it's all futile. The euphemism quickly takes on the meaning of the word it replaces. Only the words change.

The funeral director talks about preparing loved ones who have passed on for their eternal repose, but he's still an undertaker who buries dead bodies. And despite all his euphemisms, they're still dead.

Wandering Critic wrote:

BAAAAWWWWWWWWW I CAN'T CALL PEOPLE RETARDS AND SPASTICS WITHOUT PEOPLE LOOKING AT ME LIKE I'M A FUCKING ASSHOLE WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO

ps the only one who's "all upset" here is you

Quote :

The funeral director talks about preparing loved ones who have passed on for their eternal repose, but he's still an undertaker who buries dead bodies.

and yet you can't see why he uses the euphemisms instead of saying "Oh yeah I stuffed your dad's corpse with sawdust so he won't rot before we throw him in the hole"

who's the real idiot here

Quote :

I have to disagree. She is (or may be, since they give us no usable information) stupid. Assholes who leave their cigarettes out and then beat their 2-year-old to death are not stupid; they're murderous sons of bitches. "Stupid" is lacking intelligence; "murderous son of a bitch" is lacking humanity.

Stupid is a perfectly valid word, meaning "not smart". I prefer it to whatever euphemism is in fashion this year, if for no better reason than I don't have to keep learning new ones or risk being told that whatever was last year's proper euphemism is politically incorrect this year.

One has to wonder what word should apply to someone who complains that a word isn't being used as an insult.

Yet calling her stupid still remains inaccurate, at least until we know the extent of her "mild disabilities". Stupid implies that she is of below average mental functioning (ie: retarded), while "mild disabilities" could mean a wide variety of disorders that don't necessarily impair her intelligence. For all we know, her "mild disability" could be as (relatively) minor as ADHD.