Daughter Dies While Parents Play WOW

Trolls are full of shit. You said you are a troll. Do the math.

This post is a little better Kris. Keep working on it and you wont be so obvious.

Edit: Oh one more thing. Picking fights with a troll is silly, even if you clearly win the troll just responds "oh I was trolling". The troll trump card. So no I'm not picking a fight with you. It would be for no gain, no matter the substance.

(edited)

What are you, the post police?

Come on Kris. That was VERY obvious. Only a newbie would get worked up from that response. You can do better, I know it.

heh i found that one amusing actually

Oh yeah it was sooooo original. A D- at best.

I agree that being home is no guarantee that the baby would have survived. They might not have been able to do anything.

But the flipside is this... If there WAS something that could have been done, there's no way anyone could have done it, because they left the baby unsupervised. That is a massive difference. In the first case, there's a chance to help... and in the second case, there's NO chance to help. Whether being there would have helped or not, NOT being there definitely DIDN'T help.

You say "If they were home there is no guarantee the baby would be alive." But by NOT being home, they DID guarantee the baby would be dead if there was trouble.

Lol I can answer YES! to all these questions. I read a great deal about SIDS when I had my first baby, and concluded that proximity to the baby was bound to help with prevention. That has since been justified by clinical research which suggests that exhaled carbon dioxide may have a stimulant effect on a baby's breathing.

I used to find it difficult to leave my baby alone in the room while I made a cup of tea, or went to fetch washing from upstairs. The impossibility of leaving him even with another adult for more than half an hour made me wonder how people could bear to leave their child alone for such a long time. I did learn to relax a little more with numbers two and three....

Seems to me there are two issues here. The negligence implied by leaving the baby unattended, and the death of the baby and whether it was preventable. Even if the baby's death wasn't preventable, it was negligent to leave a four month old baby alone.

There are many parents who are inadequate and negligent. I made the mistake when I was younger of assuming that this meant they didn't care about their children, but I have learned that often your parenting skills are highly dependent upon the parenting which you received yourself, and often the parenting in the first year is the parenting which most affects your ability to parent your own baby. Many parents who care well for their children ought to bless the good parenting that they received themselves, instead of taking all the credit. Many of the parents who are negligent in their parenting love their children, but can't seem to translate this into proper care of them.

And if they loved their baby, however negligent they were, then this couple have been punished already.
Cali

Thank you for stating eloquently what I've been trying to put into words all day, you just saved me from all the typing. I love my child very much she's managed to make it to 16, and it wasn't because I had the greatest parenting skills - I know I'm not a nurturing mother and looking back I was not a nurtured child...my sister on the other hand was loved and nurtured - she's the perfect mom...God cursed us...I had the child my sister is barren, luckily for me and my child my sister picked up where I lacked. I would die, literally lay down and die if something happened to my child but that just doesn't equate to being a good parent.

These parents are criminally negligent if there are laws in place for what they've done, and if they do love their child like Cali said the loss of that child is a harsh punishment for being stupid but punishment just the same. If they didn't love their child perhaps the child was spared a lifetime of neglect, abuse or worse.

Jeska,

That was not a personal attack. Are you sure you have the definition of what one is?

The bit you've edited out was 'alternatively you can go fuck yourself'. It was merely a suggestion. Yes, it was not PG, but it is not an attack.

How is that an attack? An attack, certainly in the context of previous moderation here, would mean I had called him something. I didn't. And I didn't start the unpleasantness either. I didn't report the initial post for the same reason: it wasn't a personal attack - just someone resorting to personal unpleasantness because he isn't capable of actually arguing a viewpoint. I responded in kind because thats the only way to deal with these kind of people.

By implication, you've made it seem worse than it is. And if mine is a personal attack, how come his comments, which are no less aggressive or insulting, and make a personal assertion about me, are still there? Just because I didn't come crying to a Linden about it? Or because he didn't use a rude word to do it? Would I have been edited if I'd said 'alternatively you can go f*ck yourself?', or 'alternatively you can go screw yourself'?

You guys really need to exercise some consistency.

You can go ahead and ban me now. Just wanted to make my point

While it may be true that some negligent even abusive parents may have come from a similar background being brought up by their own parents & it's definately easier to be a good parent when you have good parent role model it is not as cut & dry as that.

There are cases where people can still grow up to be good parents even if they have had the worst of parents & people who had very good parents who grow up to still not be good parents themselves. I tend to believe that it's up to us to decide what kind of parents we want to be & how much effort we are willing to put into our parenting for the sake & love of our children. I also believe that some people just aren't meant to be parents. They don't have the heart for it.
One thing I will agree with though I do thank my parents, I learned alot from their mistakes & my experience(s) with them has inspired me to be a much better parent to my own children.

Most people agree that a horrendous lack of parenting that caused this. I think the thing that needs to be discussed is the context of this story:



I believe by simply putting "Baby Killed while Parents Play Online Game" as the headline is tantamount to accusing the game. The focus of the story is *not* on the parents, but on what they were doing. Same thing with 60 Minutes. The focus isn't on the irresponsible parents, it's on what they allowed their kids to play.

Once again, we are shown to be a nation who prefers to mislay blame rather than deal with the actual problems. It's like a doctor who doesn't treat the illness, but tries to come up with prognosises that allow him to avoid the work of helping the paitent.

Well I have to address this. It's not our nation that is addressing this nor sensationalizing the fact that the parents are apparently video game junkies....that were idiot parents, this is actually Chosun...mean it's a Korean paper - So in essence the MEDIA put emphasis on the irrelevance that these negligent parents were playing a video game and implied that's the reason the child may have died - these parents could have easily gone to the market or the movies..

This trend in the Media has nothing to do with any particular country it has to do with what sells. By using the title they did, they got the results they wanted..we're disussing the issues and we're reading their article. Doesn't matter that it wasn't responsible reporting.

*nod* I agree that the media is the culprit here (although my opinion that our nation is addicted to blame-laying still stands). I don't think, however, that their intention is for issues to be discussed. They *do* want their article read, so they can sell papers...but the intent is not to provoke thought, IMHO. It's more an attempt to think for the reader.

I was more or less giving them the benefit of the doubt because you do find sensationalism even in responsible magazines and programs... But the bottom line is how many hits they get from such Grand Standing headings.

As far as our nation being addicted to blame-laying, that maybe true, but then again the world loves to blame our nation so why not jump on the band wagon.

"What sells" are stories that reflect and reinforce the cultural mores already prevailant in any given society. Blaming "the media" is like smashing a mirror because you've got warts... or blaming a video game for the irresponsibility of the player.

If you want the media in a free society to not be sensationalistic and exploitative, you've got to educate the audience to demand something beyond sensationalism. And good luck to you... Americans have been fighting this battle ever since William Randolph Hearst started a war just to sell newspapers.

The internet, where any piece of writing is instantly exposed to minute criticism, may be our best hope for better journalism. Or it may lead to the ultimate balkinization of social discourse. Time will tell.

Well blaming the media as whole is as you say smashing a mirror... it all boils down to the chicken or the egg. Media feeds the masses, masses feed the media, they pander to each other.

The focus was negligent parents that experienced the death of their child...their activity while being negligent is actually irrelevant. Human nature would rather blame the activity rather than the person committing the act.

well, video games are like any other addiction

and likewise, you still need to take responsibility

Well the responsibility lies in the parents, people can be addicted to many things one at a time or all at once...doesn't mean they will neglect their children, just because these ones did. The addiction is a symptom of something else going on with these people. Aw crap...it's too late for me to debate my thoughts.

The parents are responsible for their child, no one else was...video game or no. That's really all there is too it.