No, we don't know who this man is. That's not the same as no one. He could be a well respected member of the community for all we know. I'd doubt it given the context, but that's my point, judging whether selling the child to that man is good or bad depends on things we don't know.Ariyura said:
Woman Reveals Sale Of Son On Facebook, Gets Busted
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
How is that logical? The child would be an addict because the mother was a user, that doesn't say anything about the man. At most, it just supports that the mother might not have been the best person to be making such decisions in the first place, but it doesn't suggest a thing about the man either way.Astoria said:
Stupidity is not a genetic condition, it is a choice that is exterior to Natural Selection. Stupidity may lead to the death of an individual whom has made stupid choices, but stupidity itself is simply a byproduct of a lack of education (save, of course, conditions such as mental retardation, but this woman is not mentally retarded in any actual, medical fashion). So please, quit it with the "If Natural Selection was still working..!" spiel. You don't understand much about it if this post is any indicator.canadamus_prime said:
Hmmm, well what I'd find more interesting is the number of people who have gotten away with bragging about crimes and such over Facebook, rather than the ones that have done it and gotten caught. Trends like this start for a reason.
Also the law can be a messed up thing, and depending on the details and the lawyers some of these arrests might not lead to convictions. See, if you can goad the police into arresting you and pursueing a case you know you can beat, even if on a technicality, it makes it much easier to beat other cases by claiming that the police are harassing you on a grudge. Looking at the guy who posted the picture to the Kid's facebook page and such, I don't see much there that is inherantly incriminating, unless the coat is a one of a kind original or something that picture could have been taken anywhere, it's circumstantial, and Facebook is fairly easy to break into and impersonate someone else with as far as such things go. As I said, we'd have to know more about the way these cases have been fought in court before making any desicians on stupidity.
Believe it or not there are fairly petty criminals out there that are more or less untouchable due to the sheer number of arrests they have had without conviction. They can scream police harassment/racism and point to the record and use it as a form of defense, because anything short of an airtight case could get the police sued... and the funny thing about airtight cases, is that in a country (the US) where the requirement is "beyond a reasonable doubt" there is vitually no such thing when someone has a big enough microscope. That "harassment" record becomes the very definition of reasonable doubt.
As far as the lady selling the kid, that's messed up, but the devil is in the details. Definatly illegal and should be, especially given the attitude over facebook, but it's remotely possible she couldn't raise the kid and was trying to find a new home. 15k for a baby isn't surprising given that the mother can't/doesn't want to raise it, it's not a surrogacy arrangement which is a bit differant.
The reason why I think this one needs to be looked into is because I figure the really evil people wanting to sell their kids would have done it internationally. The "usual" method is to take the kid, anything from an infant to a teenager, on a vacation to Asia... Bangkok is a pretty typical location "we're going to see the temples and learn about Thai silk making!", have the kid "abducted" in exchange for money, and then sit there and wallow in the sympathy "oh noes! they took my child" while spending your money and heading home to "greive". Then the organized crime syndicates sell the kid (or just the organs) or
put them to work in the sex trade. It winds up falling under "disapperances" and the blanket warning about how some parts of the world are fairly dangerous.
If she was seedily shopping around to sell a baby for some fast cash, this actually makes me think she was thinking in terms of finding it a home, from someone who couldn't adopt due to his own record (there is always a reason). As opposed to the kid say being chopped up for organs to save the life of some rich guy's baby who is born needing a transplant or whatever.
Also the law can be a messed up thing, and depending on the details and the lawyers some of these arrests might not lead to convictions. See, if you can goad the police into arresting you and pursueing a case you know you can beat, even if on a technicality, it makes it much easier to beat other cases by claiming that the police are harassing you on a grudge. Looking at the guy who posted the picture to the Kid's facebook page and such, I don't see much there that is inherantly incriminating, unless the coat is a one of a kind original or something that picture could have been taken anywhere, it's circumstantial, and Facebook is fairly easy to break into and impersonate someone else with as far as such things go. As I said, we'd have to know more about the way these cases have been fought in court before making any desicians on stupidity.
Believe it or not there are fairly petty criminals out there that are more or less untouchable due to the sheer number of arrests they have had without conviction. They can scream police harassment/racism and point to the record and use it as a form of defense, because anything short of an airtight case could get the police sued... and the funny thing about airtight cases, is that in a country (the US) where the requirement is "beyond a reasonable doubt" there is vitually no such thing when someone has a big enough microscope. That "harassment" record becomes the very definition of reasonable doubt.
As far as the lady selling the kid, that's messed up, but the devil is in the details. Definatly illegal and should be, especially given the attitude over facebook, but it's remotely possible she couldn't raise the kid and was trying to find a new home. 15k for a baby isn't surprising given that the mother can't/doesn't want to raise it, it's not a surrogacy arrangement which is a bit differant.
The reason why I think this one needs to be looked into is because I figure the really evil people wanting to sell their kids would have done it internationally. The "usual" method is to take the kid, anything from an infant to a teenager, on a vacation to Asia... Bangkok is a pretty typical location "we're going to see the temples and learn about Thai silk making!", have the kid "abducted" in exchange for money, and then sit there and wallow in the sympathy "oh noes! they took my child" while spending your money and heading home to "greive". Then the organized crime syndicates sell the kid (or just the organs) or
put them to work in the sex trade. It winds up falling under "disapperances" and the blanket warning about how some parts of the world are fairly dangerous.
If she was seedily shopping around to sell a baby for some fast cash, this actually makes me think she was thinking in terms of finding it a home, from someone who couldn't adopt due to his own record (there is always a reason). As opposed to the kid say being chopped up for organs to save the life of some rich guy's baby who is born needing a transplant or whatever.
She is lacking in any traits we'd wish passed on to the next generation though, namely any trace of intelligence.ShadowsofHope said:
Facebook: The new Batman.
That should be their new slogan. Seriously, it's like it forces criminals to admit their crimes and then it gives cops their specific location. It's awesome!
Granted, I actually hate Facebook and I don't have an account, but just because of all the crimes solved thanks to it, I'm glad it's so popular.
That should be their new slogan. Seriously, it's like it forces criminals to admit their crimes and then it gives cops their specific location. It's awesome!
Granted, I actually hate Facebook and I don't have an account, but just because of all the crimes solved thanks to it, I'm glad it's so popular.
if someone has $17,000 to spend just like that, i'd bet they have plenty of money. even if they wouldn't be a good father in general, they'd at least have the ability to take care of the child. the fact that the guy is a drug dealer does make it seem like there are definitely better options..and he shouldn't be raising a child, but maybe the mom didn't know this. maybe all she knew was that he had money, which she clearly did not have, and saw that with that kind of money the child could then be taken care of more so than she ever would be able to herself. she also needed money, as already having two other kids, being single, and not having a job, so maybe it was kind of an "offer than cannot be refused" type situation. did she do that right thing? she took the worst of the evils of what to do with the child, but i'd have to say there was no real "right" thing to do, because no matter what i doubt the child would end up in a good situation. is she a terrible person? i wouldn't say she's terrible. she's stupid, true, but she isn't some mixture of hitler and skeletor whose piss is pure malevolence
Intelligence is not genetic, it is not inherent. It is obtained through education (or built upon through such). The mother can be a complete idiot, but the child, through education, can still eventually be a genius. Though, do tell me, what other genetic traits does this woman bear, to your knowledge, that we wouldn't want passed to her future generations? How did her other children turn out, I wonder?canadamus_prime said:
Her decision to sell her child (which, by the way, I do not endorse) to this man due to external factors (economic situation, emotional/mental stress, etc) is not something that can passed down to offspring, unless she actively teaches her children that such actions are alright. So, no. I'm still afraid your quite off-base in your assertions.
What exactly, was he going to do with this child? Why did he pay $15,000 for it?
Some occultist, satanist or dark witchcraft ritual nutjob, or selling it to the aforementioned? I can't think there would be a baby-blackmarket, not a profitable one anyway. $15k is a lot of money to get a return on a "looking couple" willing to pay for an opiate-addicted neglected newborn.
If it's true he was a prescription-drug hocker and a bookie, then I can't come to reason that he was looking to be a good dad.
Weird.
Some occultist, satanist or dark witchcraft ritual nutjob, or selling it to the aforementioned? I can't think there would be a baby-blackmarket, not a profitable one anyway. $15k is a lot of money to get a return on a "looking couple" willing to pay for an opiate-addicted neglected newborn.
If it's true he was a prescription-drug hocker and a bookie, then I can't come to reason that he was looking to be a good dad.
Weird.
Sometimes I'm amazed just how dumb a person is capable of being. Yeah...don't try to sell children, kids.
I'm confused why did he want to buy the kid in the first place? To raise it or for more sinister purposes?
If she is a drug addict then it is logical to assume she isn't hanging around with the best people. And as you just pointed out she probably wasn't in the best frame of mind to make a decision like that so she wouldn't have made completely sure that he was the best choice. It doesn't mean he was a bad choice, I'm not saying he was, but it is reasonable to assume he was.Jadak said:
Agh...you...ARGH! *gets brain bleach* So...sick...I don't have many lines to cross. But that movie still crossed those few lines.Snake Plissken said:
Guys, let's put this in perspective. When they say she "sold her kid" it's not as if she just walked out the hospital, handed the kid off to some random stranger and ran off. What she did was make the guy the kid's dad. He came down, signed the birth certificate, and now is in exactly the same position as he would be if he'd been some random dude who had sex with her 9 months ago.
And the reason he paid her $15,000? Because the alternative is paying that same amount to lawyers (one for him, one for her) to draft up an adoption agreement, have her sign over her parental rights, have him appointed by the court as guardian of the kid, e.t.c. Not to mention the process would take a lot longer.
He just figured he found a loophole so he wouldn't have to wait as long. And she's just stupid for saying "I sold my kid" instead of "some guy paid me $15,000 to be the father to my kid."
And the reason he paid her $15,000? Because the alternative is paying that same amount to lawyers (one for him, one for her) to draft up an adoption agreement, have her sign over her parental rights, have him appointed by the court as guardian of the kid, e.t.c. Not to mention the process would take a lot longer.
He just figured he found a loophole so he wouldn't have to wait as long. And she's just stupid for saying "I sold my kid" instead of "some guy paid me $15,000 to be the father to my kid."