The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I'm all for this kid. Tough life. Makes you grateful for what you have.

On another note though, why was his uncapable mother still having children? Is she THAT stupid? She couldn't support two, so having more was the answer? Stupid woman!

Champsturf wrote:On another note though, why was his uncapable mother still having children? Is she THAT stupid? She couldn't support two, so having more was the answer? Stupid woman!

Forced abortions?

It's called lack of information regarding contraception.

I would abstain from calling her, or any other person, "stupid" for that reason.

Deadskins wrote:

Champsturf wrote:On another note though, why was his uncapable mother still having children? Is she THAT stupid? She couldn't support two, so having more was the answer? Stupid woman!

Forced abortions?

No. Just responsible actions. Seriously, if you can't take care of the 2 kids you have, why would you continue to have more? Somethinig tells me tax dollars at work here!

El Mexican wrote:It's called lack of information regarding contraception.

I would abstain from calling her, or any other person, "stupid" for that reason.

Or...just don't have sex whether or not you're wacked out on drugs...just a thought.

That's one of the big things wrong with this country...no responsibilty for your actions...

So yes, I still say that she's stupid.

Yeah, nobody's ever gotten pregnant while being responsible. And I bet she was getting rich off those tax dollars while living in the homeless shelter.

Deadskins wrote:Yeah, nobody's ever gotten pregnant while being responsible. And I bet she was getting rich off those tax dollars while living in the homeless shelter.

More people get pregnant by being irresponsible...
LMAO about the taxes comment...I was referring to her collecting her welfare checks (tax dollars) and using them well
Quit defending the stupid people out there.

Champsturf wrote:Quit defending the stupid people out there.

Curious... but I don't really see anyone defending you.

Alright... settle down... I was just kidding... it was just a joke.

Champsturf wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Yeah, nobody's ever gotten pregnant while being responsible. And I bet she was getting rich off those tax dollars while living in the homeless shelter.

More people get pregnant by being irresponsible...
LMAO about the taxes comment...I was referring to her collecting her welfare checks (tax dollars) and using them well
Quit defending the stupid people out there.

Point is, you know nothing of her situation, yet you choose to judge her. My guess is you have never wanted for a meal or a roof over your head a day in your life. Are poor people stupid just because they are poor, or are they poor because they are stupid?

Deadskins wrote:

Champsturf wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Yeah, nobody's ever gotten pregnant while being responsible. And I bet she was getting rich off those tax dollars while living in the homeless shelter.

More people get pregnant by being irresponsible...
LMAO about the taxes comment...I was referring to her collecting her welfare checks (tax dollars) and using them well
Quit defending the stupid people out there.

Point is, you know nothing of her situation, yet you choose to judge her. My guess is you have never wanted for a meal or a roof over your head a day in your life. Are poor people stupid just because they are poor, or are they poor because they are stupid?

Being poor and being stupid have no correlation. I have no idea why you insinutaed that. I find it just terribly stupid and irresposible to continue to have children when you can't care for the ones that you already have. That much "of her situation" was in the article. You insinuting that I have "never wanted a meal or roof over" my head is pure speculation on your part. Try sticking to the facts at hand.

Champsturf wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Champsturf wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Why not focus on the good, which is how much this kid's been thru to get where he is now, instead of focusing on the negative past that he had no control over. It's not about his mother, it's about Dixon.

I started my post by giving him props and wishing him well. I just also feel that there is more to this, as it seemed to me thata she's still looking for a free ride. It must just be the pessimist in me. Sorry.

It was a general comment, Champ. I think it's awesome that this kid's been thru so much adversity and he's not using it as a crutch, but for motivation. He's got strength I wish I had when I was younger...

I'm assuming that you mean mental strength and I agree. I just wonder where he get's it... He must've just developed it on his own..HUGE props to him and good luck!

Man, you have no idea what his mother is like nor do you know what their circumstances are like. You should not be so judgemental. Our third kid was born with my wife on birth control pills, she did not miss a single one. Would you be so disrespectful to her if we were poor and in need of some government assistence? Wait, let me think for a second - my parents helped pay for college, my sister has bailed me out of a few jams and helped with the downpayment on my house, my grandfather helped with some early bills, and I am a recovering alocoholic. Come to think of it had I not had a supportive family (which not everyone does) my wife and I may have needed public support at some point. But for the Grace of God go I my friend. You should take stock of your good fortune and keep your judgements to yourself.

cleg wrote:

Champsturf wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Champsturf wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Why not focus on the good, which is how much this kid's been thru to get where he is now, instead of focusing on the negative past that he had no control over. It's not about his mother, it's about Dixon.

I started my post by giving him props and wishing him well. I just also feel that there is more to this, as it seemed to me thata she's still looking for a free ride. It must just be the pessimist in me. Sorry.

It was a general comment, Champ. I think it's awesome that this kid's been thru so much adversity and he's not using it as a crutch, but for motivation. He's got strength I wish I had when I was younger...

I'm assuming that you mean mental strength and I agree. I just wonder where he get's it... He must've just developed it on his own..HUGE props to him and good luck!

Man, you have no idea what his mother is like nor do you know what their circumstances are like. You should not be so judgemental. Our third kid was born with my wife on birth control pills, she did not miss a single one. Would you be so disrespectful to her if we were poor and in need of some government assistence? Wait, let me think for a second - my parents helped pay for college, my sister has bailed me out of a few jams and helped with the downpayment on my house, my grandfather helped with some early bills, and I am a recovering alocoholic. Come to think of it had I not had a supportive family (which not everyone does) my wife and I may have needed public support at some point. But for the Grace of God go I my friend. You should take stock of your good fortune and keep your judgements to yourself.

Don't tell me what to do or not do. This is a message board and my opinion was voiced. I have that right.

Maybe I would be disrespectful to you, maybe not. I do know that this is not the place.

Champsturf wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Champsturf wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Yeah, nobody's ever gotten pregnant while being responsible. And I bet she was getting rich off those tax dollars while living in the homeless shelter.

More people get pregnant by being irresponsible...
LMAO about the taxes comment...I was referring to her collecting her welfare checks (tax dollars) and using them well
Quit defending the stupid people out there.

Point is, you know nothing of her situation, yet you choose to judge her. My guess is you have never wanted for a meal or a roof over your head a day in your life. Are poor people stupid just because they are poor, or are they poor because they are stupid?

Being poor and being stupid have no correlation. I have no idea why you insinutaed that. I find it just terribly stupid and irresposible to continue to have children when you can't care for the ones that you already have. That much "of her situation" was in the article. You insinuting that I have "never wanted a meal or roof over" my head is pure speculation on your part. Try sticking to the facts at hand.

Of course it's speculation, that's what "my guess is" means. And I'm not "insinuting" [sic] anything; I'm stating it outright. I think her choices in regards to her reproductive freedom, are her own. Would you rather she had aborted the babies? Or maybe she's stupid because she was poor and she had sex? To me, that is the perspective of someone who's never experienced that level of poverty. She seems like a caring person to me. Hell, she works at the homeless shelter now, helping others through their own troubles. I guess we just see it differently.

Deadskins wrote:

Champsturf wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Champsturf wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Yeah, nobody's ever gotten pregnant while being responsible. And I bet she was getting rich off those tax dollars while living in the homeless shelter.

More people get pregnant by being irresponsible...
LMAO about the taxes comment...I was referring to her collecting her welfare checks (tax dollars) and using them well
Quit defending the stupid people out there.

Point is, you know nothing of her situation, yet you choose to judge her. My guess is you have never wanted for a meal or a roof over your head a day in your life. Are poor people stupid just because they are poor, or are they poor because they are stupid?

Being poor and being stupid have no correlation. I have no idea why you insinutaed that. I find it just terribly stupid and irresposible to continue to have children when you can't care for the ones that you already have. That much "of her situation" was in the article. You insinuting that I have "never wanted a meal or roof over" my head is pure speculation on your part. Try sticking to the facts at hand.

Of course it's speculation, that's what "my guess is" means. And I'm not "insinuting" [sic] anything; I'm stating it outright. I think her choices in regards to her reproductive freedom, are her own. Would you rather she had aborted the babies? Or maybe she's stupid because she was poor and she had sex? To me, that is the perspective of someone who's never experienced that level of poverty. She seems like a caring person to me. Hell, she works at the homeless shelter now, helping others through their own troubles. I guess we just see it differently.

Those choices are and should be everyone's right...that is, until you can't take care of the children you have and the government has to step in, which means tax dollars at work.
Would you rather she had aborted the babies? We have modern science now and have discovered what it takes to get pregnant. Try taking a few precautions...you know, like maybe abstinence.
As far as her being a caring person, we don't know that either. For all we know, she feels so much guilt and remorse for being so irresposible in her youth that working in the shelter is the only way to take away some of that guilt. Now I'm not saying that's the case at all, just showing you there are usually more ways to look at things if you don't use just the facts. You know, facts like she had 2 boys that she couldn't take care of, yet had more children anyway. There may be a lot more to the story but the only facts I have are what was in the article. If you KNOW more about her situation, feel free to share and maybe I'll change my opinion.

Champsturf wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Champsturf wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Champsturf wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Yeah, nobody's ever gotten pregnant while being responsible. And I bet she was getting rich off those tax dollars while living in the homeless shelter.

More people get pregnant by being irresponsible...
LMAO about the taxes comment...I was referring to her collecting her welfare checks (tax dollars) and using them well
Quit defending the stupid people out there.

Point is, you know nothing of her situation, yet you choose to judge her. My guess is you have never wanted for a meal or a roof over your head a day in your life. Are poor people stupid just because they are poor, or are they poor because they are stupid?

Being poor and being stupid have no correlation. I have no idea why you insinutaed that. I find it just terribly stupid and irresposible to continue to have children when you can't care for the ones that you already have. That much "of her situation" was in the article. You insinuting that I have "never wanted a meal or roof over" my head is pure speculation on your part. Try sticking to the facts at hand.

Of course it's speculation, that's what "my guess is" means. And I'm not "insinuting" [sic] anything; I'm stating it outright. I think her choices in regards to her reproductive freedom, are her own. Would you rather she had aborted the babies? Or maybe she's stupid because she was poor and she had sex? To me, that is the perspective of someone who's never experienced that level of poverty. She seems like a caring person to me. Hell, she works at the homeless shelter now, helping others through their own troubles. I guess we just see it differently.

Those choices are and should be everyone's right...that is, until you can't take care of the children you have and the government has to step in, which means tax dollars at work.
Would you rather she had aborted the babies? We have modern science now and have discovered what it takes to get pregnant. Try taking a few precautions...you know, like maybe abstinence.
As far as her being a caring person, we don't know that either. For all we know, she feels so much guilt and remorse for being so irresposible in her youth that working in the shelter is the only way to take away some of that guilt. Now I'm not saying that's the case at all, just showing you there are usually more ways to look at things if you don't use just the facts. You know, facts like she had 2 boys that she couldn't take care of, yet had more children anyway. There may be a lot more to the story but the only facts I have are what was in the article. If you KNOW more about her situation, feel free to share and maybe I'll change my opinion.

Kudos on your empathy.

Deadskins wrote:I think her choices in regards to her reproductive freedom, are her own

Shouldn't that personal freedom come with personal responsibility as well? How does it make sense to have a personal freedom that comes with the cash to raise the kid raised at the point of government guns? What kind of freedom is that? A society as a whole cannot have personal freedom without personal responsibility because any time you take away someone's personal responsibility that responsibility is transferred to someone else taking away their personal freedom.

Champsturf wrote:Being poor and being stupid have no correlation

Well, if what you mean is they don't have a correlation of 1 then I agree with you. But if you mean the correlation is zero, you're not being realistic.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:I think her choices in regards to her reproductive freedom, are her own

Shouldn't that personal freedom come with personal responsibility as well? How does it make sense to have a personal freedom that comes with the cash to raise the kid raised at the point of government guns? What kind of freedom is that? A society as a whole cannot have personal freedom without personal responsibility because any time you take away someone's personal responsibility that responsibility is transferred to someone else taking away their personal freedom.

So, you're also saying poor people shouldn't have sex? You have no idea whether she used protection. Birth control is not 100%, but even if she didn't, it's not really relevant. Aren't you advocating limiting her freedoms, because you don't personally agree with her choice? Are you also blaming her for the welfare state? Because all she did was take advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves. I'm guessing you would too, if the situation ever required it (I know, that could never happen to you ). Or are you saying she went homeless on purpose just so her lazy ass could suckle at the welfare teat?

Deadskins wrote:So, you're also saying poor people shouldn't have sex?

I thought I said people should have personal freedom but with it should come personal responsibility.

Deadskins wrote:You have no idea whether she used protection. Birth control is not 100%, but even if she didn't, it's not really relevant. Aren't you advocating limiting her freedoms, because you don't personally agree with her choice?

I actually didn't say I disagreed with her choice. I said she should have had the personal freedom to make a choice and the personal responsibility for the consequences of her choice. If you go back to my argument:

kaz wrote:A society as a whole cannot have personal freedom without personal responsibility because any time you take away someone's personal responsibility that responsibility is transferred to someone else taking away their personal freedom.

Deadskins wrote:Are you also blaming her for the welfare state? Because all she did was take advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves.

No I'm not saying that. That would be silly. It would be like blaming a kid who joined a gang. It would be like blaming Kenneth Lay or Madoff. They were just taking advantage of an opportunity. Plundering others is OK as long as you do it through politicians with the backing of government guns.

Deadskins wrote:I'm guessing you would too, if the situation ever required it (I know, that could never happen to you ).

I realize you're not a liberal, or you are, or you're a Democrat, or you're not. I can never keep track. But this goes back to the basic question that because I believe in effective welfare I do not believe government should do it. Your logical fallacy is called "begging the question" because you assume the truth of your position and I have to support your government solution or I don't believe in welfare. I would far rather be needy in my system then yours because I might actually get help that doesn't come with chains.

Deadskins wrote:Or are you saying she went homeless on purpose just so her lazy ass could suckle at the welfare teat?

Um...huh?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:So, you're also saying poor people shouldn't have sex?

I thought I said people should have personal freedom but with it should come personal responsibility. Not sure where that adds to poor people can't have sex.

It adds to "poor people can't have sex," because you are saying that to take personal responsibility she needs to take precautions, or abstain completely. Assuming you realize "abstaining completely" literally means "can't have sex," then the other option is birth control. You have no idea whether or not she used it, but let's say she did. Should she then have to have an abortion or give up the child (backed by your "government guns")? And if she didn't use BC, then we're back to you trying to force your own sensibilities on other people. I know you're not advocating legislation to prevent poor people from having sex, so, short of that, how do you plan to regulate their "personal responsibility." The honor system?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:You have no idea whether she used protection. Birth control is not 100%, but even if she didn't, it's not really relevant. Aren't you advocating limiting her freedoms, because you don't personally agree with her choice?

I actually didn't say I disagreed with her choice.

Deadskins:
What? You agreed with her choice, then? To have extra kids when she couldn't take care of the ones she has? I think you made it pretty clear which side of her choice you stand on, even though you phrased it as:

I said she should have had the personal freedom to make a choice and the personal responsibility for the consequences of her choice. If you go back to my argument:

kaz wrote:A society as a whole cannot have personal freedom without personal responsibility because any time you take away someone's personal responsibility that responsibility is transferred to someone else taking away their personal freedom.

Deadskins wrote:Are you also blaming her for the welfare state? Because all she did was take advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves.

No I'm not saying that. That would be silly. It would be like blaming a kid who joined a gang. It would be like blaming Kenneth Lay or Madoff. They were just taking advantage of an opportunity. Plundering others is OK as long as you do it through politicians with the backing of government guns.

So now you're saying that accepting welfare when you're destitute is equivalent to joining a gang or knowingly ripping off investors??? Really?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:I'm guessing you would too, if the situation ever required it (I know, that could never happen to you ).

I realize you're not a liberal, or you are, or you're a Democrat, or you're not. I can never keep track. But this goes back to the basic question that because I believe in effective welfare I do not believe government should do it. Your logical fallacy is called "begging the question" because you assume the truth of your position and I have to support your government solution or I don't believe in welfare. I would far rather be needy in my system then yours because I might actually get help that doesn't come with chains.

Here you go again, trying to turn this into some kind of referendum on welfare itself. All the hyperbole aside, are you really, seriously, claiming you wouldn't seek welfare, if you were homeless with multiple children to take care of?
That's the most disingenuous thing you may have ever posted here.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Or are you saying she went homeless on purpose just so her lazy ass could suckle at the welfare teat?

Um...huh?

That is the only other possibility.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:So, you're also saying poor people shouldn't have sex?

I thought I said people should have personal freedom but with it should come personal responsibility. Not sure where that adds to poor people can't have sex.

It adds to "poor people can't have sex," because you are saying that to take personal responsibility she needs to take precautions, or abstain completely

Actually, it means to you poor people can't have sex because of the liberal pre-conceived idea that the poor aren't capable of personal responsibility which is how they justify making them wards of the State. I don't have that bias.

Deadskins wrote:What? You agreed with her choice, then? To have extra kids when she couldn't take care of the ones she has? I think you made it pretty clear which side of her choice you stand on

I did make it clear. I was opposed to her not taking personal responsibility for her choices. The opinions on sex were yours since I never addressed that.

Deadskins wrote:So now you're saying that accepting welfare when you're destitute is equivalent to joining a gang or knowingly ripping off investors??? Really?

No, I was countering your point that she was only taking advantage of her opportunities. Seriously dude, I know you don't agree that government plunder is plunder, but you know I do. Your arguments would sound a lot less stupid if you addressed my view instead of not getting them.

Deadskins wrote:All the hyperbole aside, are you really, seriously, claiming you wouldn't seek welfare, if you were homeless with multiple children to take care of?
That's the most disingenuous thing you may have ever posted here.

Read my last comment on not even grasping my position. Since that's not what I said or what I think, your argument is just stupid. The way welfare works in this country is not the only possibility and I think it's a lot more productive to think bigger then simply operating in our current, horrible system even if that's all you're interested in doing.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Or are you saying she went homeless on purpose just so her lazy ass could suckle at the welfare teat?

Um...huh?

That is the only other possibility.

That it's the only other possibility you can grasp in your limited view of the world I suppose is true. Though that it's the only other possibility you can grasp doesn't make it my view.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:So, you're also saying poor people shouldn't have sex?

I thought I said people should have personal freedom but with it should come personal responsibility. Not sure where that adds to poor people can't have sex.

It adds to "poor people can't have sex," because you are saying that to take personal responsibility she needs to take precautions, or abstain completely

Actually, it means to you poor people can't have sex because of the liberal pre-conceived idea that the poor aren't capable of personal responsibility which is how they justify making them wards of the State. I don't have that bias.

Deadskins wrote:What? You agreed with her choice, then? To have extra kids when she couldn't take care of the ones she has? I think you made it pretty clear which side of her choice you stand on

I did make it clear. I was opposed to her not taking personal responsibility for her choices. The opinions on sex were yours since I never addressed that.

Deadskins wrote:So now you're saying that accepting welfare when you're destitute is equivalent to joining a gang or knowingly ripping off investors??? Really?

No, I was countering your point that she was only taking advantage of her opportunities. Seriously dude, I know you don't agree that government plunder is plunder, but you know I do. Your arguments would sound a lot less stupid if you addressed my view instead of not getting them.

Deadskins wrote:All the hyperbole aside, are you really, seriously, claiming you wouldn't seek welfare, if you were homeless with multiple children to take care of?
That's the most disingenuous thing you may have ever posted here.

Read my last comment on not even grasping my position. Since that's not what I said or what I think, your argument is just stupid. The way welfare works in this country is not the only possibility and I think it's a lot more productive to think bigger then simply operating in our current, horrible system even if that's all you're interested in doing.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Or are you saying she went homeless on purpose just so her lazy ass could suckle at the welfare teat?

Um...huh?

That is the only other possibility.

That it's the only other possibility you can grasp in your limited view of the world I suppose is true. Though that it's the only other possibility you can grasp doesn't make it my view.

I'd like to keep this a "Redskins Topic" website, so I'll keep my comments brief about homelessness. I am as fiscally conservative as you can possibly get, but since living in DC for over 10 years my view of homelessness has changed drastically. I have several homeless people who live outside my door and they all have the same problem...and it's not laziness. The one thing that these folks has in common is mental illness. Now, I'm not saying this was the instance with Dixon's family, and I want to be as tough as possible on people who abuse the system, but let's not paint all homeless people with the same broad brush as lazy system abusers.

Now, for Dixon, like Jarmon, I was pleasantly surprised with how well he played. I thought these two, along with Orakpo were the only bright spots.

Dutch and Tryon should be cut immediately, as should Skolnitsky. Barnes was bad, but I'll give him a break because he's got talent (or so the coaching staff has told me). I hope he pans out, because most people were really high on Burt Toler at this pick. We'll see who is the better pick in the future.

if you only paid for 2 children, gave them 1 year to get back on their feet, and paid for schooling, their level of personal responsibility would drastically increase once they realized the free ride was over. never happen in this age of liberalism though. my paycheck is not happy about it either!

how someone can defend abusers of the system because they didn't invent the system is beyond me, and it's the reason why we are in this mess right now.

back to football, I hope the kid makes the team!

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:So, you're also saying poor people shouldn't have sex?

I thought I said people should have personal freedom but with it should come personal responsibility. Not sure where that adds to poor people can't have sex.

It adds to "poor people can't have sex," because you are saying that to take personal responsibility she needs to take precautions, or abstain completely

Actually, it means to you poor people can't have sex because of the liberal pre-conceived idea that the poor aren't capable of personal responsibility which is how they justify making them wards of the State. I don't have that bias.

Deadskins wrote:What? You agreed with her choice, then? To have extra kids when she couldn't take care of the ones she has? I think you made it pretty clear which side of her choice you stand on

I did make it clear. I was opposed to her not taking personal responsibility for her choices. The opinions on sex were yours since I never addressed that.

Deadskins wrote:So now you're saying that accepting welfare when you're destitute is equivalent to joining a gang or knowingly ripping off investors??? Really?

No, I was countering your point that she was only taking advantage of her opportunities. Seriously dude, I know you don't agree that government plunder is plunder, but you know I do. Your arguments would sound a lot less stupid if you addressed my view instead of not getting them.

Deadskins wrote:All the hyperbole aside, are you really, seriously, claiming you wouldn't seek welfare, if you were homeless with multiple children to take care of?
That's the most disingenuous thing you may have ever posted here.

Read my last comment on not even grasping my position. Since that's not what I said or what I think, your argument is just stupid. The way welfare works in this country is not the only possibility and I think it's a lot more productive to think bigger then simply operating in our current, horrible system even if that's all you're interested in doing.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Or are you saying she went homeless on purpose just so her lazy ass could suckle at the welfare teat?

Um...huh?

That is the only other possibility.

That it's the only other possibility you can grasp in your limited view of the world I suppose is true. Though that it's the only other possibility you can grasp doesn't make it my view.

The fact you chose to break my comments out from their role as direct responses to your posted statements only shows that can not defend your former positions, so now you must shift the focus. "Oh, you just don't understand my argument, so your response is to something I didn't say." Sorry, but yes, my responses were directly to the things you said. You may not have been able to effectively communicate your ideas, and thereby written something you didn't mean, but you still said it, nonetheless. This goes back to you often not even understanding what you yourself write.

You amaze me with how easily you slide from addressing the topic at hand back into your standard patter about the evils of liberalism. Nowhere in this discussion have I ever mentioned my views on welfare, or any kind of government assistance, yet you keep setting up this strawman to knock down. This is not a referendum on the welfare state. We are talking about one woman's "choice" to keep having children when she couldn't afford to care for them. Champsturf called her stupid, you said she wasn't taking personal responsibility. I only pointed out, that there were three possibilities here:

#1. She could abstain from sex.
#2. She could have sex, but use birth control.
#3. She could have sex, and not use birth control.

(actually, there's a fourth possibility I'll cover in a minute.)
#1 meets with your definition of personal responsibility.
#2 only partially meets your definition, because there are two possible outcomes here:
a. She gets pregnant.
b. She does not.

In a, she has taken precautions, but those measures failed, and she now faces two more options:
1. Abort the baby.
2. Have the baby.

But option 2, you have already ruled as not taking personal responsibility. So that leaves 1, as her only "responsible" option, if birth control fails.

In #3 she is already acting irresponsibly, but that is irrelevant to the possible outcomes of this scenario, as they are identical to the outcomes of #2 (she either gets pregnant or she doesn't).

Let's stipulate to her irresponsibility (You'll notice, I've never claimed she acted anything but). But, now that she's in this situation, what would you have her do? She has too many kids to be able to support them. We're past the point where she acted irresponsibly, and now she has to suffer the consequences. Does she allow herself and her children to starve, or does she accept assistance? I'm not asking for your views on the assistance itself, only if she should take advantage of the opportunity that is available. Would the choice you would make in the exact same situation be any different?


And that fourth option from earlier?
#4. She should not let herself become poor in the first place.

Champsturf wrote:

cleg wrote:

Champsturf wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Champsturf wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Why not focus on the good, which is how much this kid's been thru to get where he is now, instead of focusing on the negative past that he had no control over. It's not about his mother, it's about Dixon.

I started my post by giving him props and wishing him well. I just also feel that there is more to this, as it seemed to me thata she's still looking for a free ride. It must just be the pessimist in me. Sorry.

It was a general comment, Champ. I think it's awesome that this kid's been thru so much adversity and he's not using it as a crutch, but for motivation. He's got strength I wish I had when I was younger...

I'm assuming that you mean mental strength and I agree. I just wonder where he get's it... He must've just developed it on his own..HUGE props to him and good luck!

Man, you have no idea what his mother is like nor do you know what their circumstances are like. You should not be so judgemental. Our third kid was born with my wife on birth control pills, she did not miss a single one. Would you be so disrespectful to her if we were poor and in need of some government assistence? Wait, let me think for a second - my parents helped pay for college, my sister has bailed me out of a few jams and helped with the downpayment on my house, my grandfather helped with some early bills, and I am a recovering alocoholic. Come to think of it had I not had a supportive family (which not everyone does) my wife and I may have needed public support at some point. But for the Grace of God go I my friend. You should take stock of your good fortune and keep your judgements to yourself.

Don't tell me what to do or not do. This is a message board and my opinion was voiced. I have that right.

Maybe I would be disrespectful to you, maybe not. I do know that this is not the place.

I feel sorry for you while grateful that I am not as hateful and spitfull as you.