DaughterOfZeppelin Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I respect your right to that opinion without the need to personally attack you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I would never talk about my mother that way. Well good for you. I wouldn't talk bad about my mother either, because she's done nothing to warrant it. However, if you think for one second that Britney Spears IS a good mother, you're in la-la land. Britney Spears is a bad mother. Grasp that concept. Saying she's a bad mother is not bespeaking Mother Teresa. It's the equivalent of saying that water is wet. I think this whole thread is disrespectful toward women. Give me a break. Please show me where comments made in this thread were directed at all women, all over the world. People are talking about these two girls in this one family. Not all women everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaughterOfZeppelin Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I agree with Mary J. Blige's viewpoint on this subject. It is pointless to make things worse for Britney Spears as it only encourages her to become self-destructive. It would be better for her if she were not so much in the public eye during this time in her life, but that is no excuse to demean her. Well someone needs to tell HER that. She is a complete and utter media whore, doing anything and everything she can to attract attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I agree with Mary J. Blige's viewpoint on this subject. It is pointless to make things worse for Britney Spears as it only encourages her to become self-destructive. It would be better for her if she were not so much in the public eye during this time in her life, but that is no excuse to demean her. No, what encourages her to be self-destructive is the fact she has no one around her willing to smack her in the head and tell her to wake the hell up. All she has around her are yes-men, going along with everything she does and says because she's got the cash and they don't. What also encourages her to be self-destructive is the fact that she doesn't have the brains God gave her. She doesn't care about herself or her children, evidenced by the fact she doesn't even have custody of them anymore. She puts herself out there the way she does, flashing her genitals at the cameras, getting drunk/high in public, running over peoples' feet in the street, running red lights and generally acting like a stupid moron. If she actually wanted to do something about the way she's portrayed, she would leave the spotlight completely, go home and stay there a couple years. If you don't like people talking negatively about celebrities who do insane things in public, stay out of this thread and others like it. So they are the safe people to target? Yes. They're celebrities. When celebrities do things, good bad or indifferent, people talk about it. If you don't like that, stop reading immediately and go do something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaughterOfZeppelin Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 So they are the safe people to target? That's a bit dramatic. Discussing public figures in a public forum is hardly targeting anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 That's a bit dramatic. Discussing public figures in a public forum is hardly targeting anyone. She's always dramatic. Celebrities put themselves in the public eye everyday, and whether you like it or not, the things they do are discussed on forums like this all the time. No one is saying they should be shot, or something ridiculous like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 That would be true if you were not discussing their personal lives. THEY'RE CELEBRITIES. Do you understand that? Their personal lives are public fodder BECAUSE THEY'RE CELEBRITIES. So where does 'sterilized' fit? I don't think anyone should be sterilized and my replying to this thread doesn't mean I agree with that particular comment. Frankly, she should have been using birth control of some kind, and she probably wasn't. Either that or she's in the rare percentage of women who use it properly and still have it fail. If you have an issue with that comment, take it up with the person who said it. Notice that it's not me. Or DoZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaughterOfZeppelin Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 That would be true if you were not discussing their personal lives. Well in this particular instance both of these "celebrities" have done everything they can to ensure their personal lives stay in the media. Jamie Lynn sold this story to O.K magazine along with the rights to the first pictures of her baby for $1 million. This says to me she wants the world discussing her. It also says a lot of other things about her character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Well in this particular instance both of these "celebrities" have done everything they can to ensure their personal lives stay in the media. Jamie Lynn sold this story to O.K magazine along with the rights to the first pictures of her baby for $1 million. This says to me she wants the world discussing her. It also says a lot of other things about her character. I think it was her mother who sold the story, if you can believe that. Either way, that whole family is screwed up. I'm waiting for their older brother to say he's gay or a Satanist or something that will top what Jamie Lynn and Britney have done. So they don't have the same rights as other people? And somehow it's alright to be inconsiderate and cruel to them when talking about their personal lives? I think they are public fodder because the public shows poor judgement. Oh come off it. This sanctimony on your part could choke a horse. You're not Clarence Darrow fighting for the downtrodden here. Celebrities have the same rights as other people, but at a point.....it stops. They're famous, they put themselves in the public eye because they wouldn't be famous if they didn't. People talk about the things they do. You and I are not famous, so therefore it wouldn't be common to find people on a message board discussing our lives or our fashion choices. Britney Spears does things in public that if she wasn't famous and did anyway, people would STILL talk about. She, and others like her, are public fodder because they put themselves out there to be talked about. You don't get how celebrity works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Perhaps she wanted to control her exposure by choosing something instead of the National Enquirer. I don't pretend to read their minds, but I certainly hope for the best for them. No, she wanted a pay-day for her story. She knew that this story would be worth a lot to someone, so she ran with it. She's the 16 year old younger sister of one of this decade's biggest screw-ups. There's money to be made in this story. I don't want anything bad to happen to her or her child either, but that doesn't mean she's above condemnation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I see no point in condemning her We point out the things other people do that aren't smart, why should she be any different? She did something stupid. If she ends up a better mother than her sister, that'll be the best outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaughterOfZeppelin Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 You really need to stop lecturing on the value of human life and what it is to be a mother, it's extremely offensive. Seriously, you're directing that at someone who hasn't ever said anything to the contrary. We're talking about some stupid celebrity, not how much we hate babies and think she should just be fucking miserable forever now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedream Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 In that case you will be more than happy to hold Child Welfare Services responsible for the children who are murdered while they are in their custody or placed in foster care without adequate oversight. It would be nice for the authorities to empower the mothers to learn mutually acceptable parenting skills rather than looking for a few more nails to drive through the mothers just so the employees of Child Welfare Services can buy new suits at Saks 5th Avenue. The level of hypocrisy in that bureaucracy astounds me. They don't care about anyone's children, only the person they are worshiping in the mirror. They lack respect for parents and children alike. They destroy family relationships and ignore children when they truly are at risk. Perhaps God did intend the sixteen-year-old mother to conceive this child. It is not for me to judge or condemn her. Britney Spears' children deserve the right to grow up knowing their mother. For society to pin a scarlet letter on her because she is less than perfect or a little different or a free spirit only reveals how truly sick the society that drools over gossip in the media really is. Child Welfare Services is so poorly managed that I am surprised when they get anything right; that is true of many jurisdictions, not only Los Angeles. There are probably some conscientious people who work in that agency, but overall the child protective services agencies have very low credibility. It's not that I encourage women to have babies at too young of an age, especially if it would incur hardship, only that I wish not to condemn them and make their already challenging job a more difficult one. I disagree with your characterization of Child Welfare Services in general. I agree that Child Welfare Services is underfunded and overly bureaucratic, and suffers from a high rate of caseworker turnover. With hundreds of children assigned to one caseworker, children will slip through the cracks. It's inevitable. I also agree that the foster care system in this country is badly broken. To me, one of the highest priorities for any legislator should be to fix these things. But these issues aren't even a blip on the radar of most politicians. That's one of the things I've never understood about our society. If any agency deserves to be fully funded, it's Child Welfare. If any system deserves to be overhauled, it's the foster care system. Why haven't we taken action on these things? What does that say about America as a society that we haven't? People try, but once the debate enters the political arena, it becomes just another partisan issue, and it's the children who lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Scratch Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I disagree with your characterization of Child Welfare Services in general. I agree that Child Welfare Services is underfunded and overly bureaucratic, and suffers from a high rate of caseworker turnover. With hundreds of children assigned to one caseworker, children will slip through the cracks. It's inevitable. I also agree that the foster care system in this country is badly broken. To me, one of the highest priorities for any legislator should be to fix these things. But these issues aren't even a blip on the radar of most politicians. That's one of the things I've never understood about our society. If any agency deserves to be fully funded, it's Child Welfare. If any system deserves to be overhauled, it's the foster care system. Why haven't we taken action on these things? What does that say about America as a society that we haven't? People try, but once the debate enters the political arena, it becomes just another partisan issue, and it's the children who lose. I agree with you unequivocally, Ms. P. Tang Gerine Your passion for what is ethically imperative tickles my pantsy. ~666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAG Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 OOPS!... HE DID IT AGAIN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manderlyh Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 OOPS!... HE DID IT AGAIN! JAG--I wouldn't put myself in the real of the possibility to begin with. Unless he was a REALLY cool guy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.