• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Sympathy for Martins' parents?

joko104 said:
No, I don't buy the logic of "child" and I do think it a serious lose of discussion concerning parents who go on the ATTACK blaming EVERYONE ELSE - when the fact is their son was into drugs (fact), vandalism (fact), theft (highly indicated), and on his THIRD suspension, currently out of school for TWO WEEKS on suspension -
... for which their response, or at least the fathers', was to give him $50 to go wander the street with and then having him look after his younger sibling while the father went of to party in with Masons hours away leaving his 2 sons alone - supervised by his pothead out-of-control 17 year old.

The directly TM was rapidly going was a crime wave waiting to happen.

By the "child" logic, then everyone agrees we should express no sympathy to parents of soldiers seriously and permanent crippled in battle - because they lived and are no longer under age 18. We should have no sympathy for anyone imprisoned for years falsely - being over age 17. As long as someone is over age 17 and alive, we should never express any sympathy if still alive.

THAT is what is being claimed - after everyone agrees that total lack of any parental supervision, discipline and control for their child is 100% entirely acceptable.

Where is the sympathy for GZ's parents? I have not seen one word on the forum or media. Their son was violently attacked and harmed. He has been jailed for self defense. His reputation totally trashed by politicians and many others.Death threats against him. His future destroyed regardless. His parents, just for being his parents, had to also leave their homes, go into hiding and even death threats against them.

I would like to see ANYONE post ANY link of sympathy for them. There aren't any, are there?

The parenting of TM didn't begin the night his father gave him $50 to go wander the streets with while on his 3rd and 2 week long being suspended fom school. It was a lifetime of failed parenting leading to where TM was at in his increasingly troubled and defiant life also increasingly into crime.

And I do not agree it is impossible to keep a 17 year old at home when he/she didn't want to be. I did it all the time. The punishment/sanctions for breaking curfew, for not being home when required to be so, was known and absolute. The rules alway were absolute and this became so routine that by age 17 there were so expected there was disappoint if that supervision wasn't there - such as MY 17 year calling to ask us why hadn't we called yet to ask where she was and who she was with. She came to appreciate this level of attention and focus by her (adoptive) parents.

NOR do I think this is irrelevant. It is known that TM was into drugs, vandalism, theft, truancy, and repeatedly suspended from school. To give him some martyre/hero status - and her parents as heros for champion accusing others - is a terrible mistake particularly within the African-American community given how most already have fathers who are absent and don't give a damn like his father, and do have higher problems on average in school, with violent, and with police.

If TM had even half assed parents in his life, I do not believe this would have happened. Once those rotten parents decided they had all the time in the world for their son was only AFTER his death and when they believed they could get a pile of money by suing their neighbors. When they did that, I think they cashed in their sympathy chips. Their failures as parents is more responsible for TM's death than are their neighbors or the property association - which have NO responsibility whatsoever.


Where is the sympathy for GZ's parents?
Click to expand...


Well, first, you never asked me if I felt sympathy for Zimmerman's parents. Of course I do -- what a nightmare this must be for them. Not only has their child killed someone, but he's on trial for murder. In their shoes, I'd be ALMOST as distraught as Martin's parents must be.

But all this trashing of Martin and his parents is disturbing, joko. I've known plenty of parents whose teenagers were a holy terror and I've joined them in their dark days of praying that kid will make it 21 without a felony record.

It bothers me that, out of bias towards Martin, you'd withhold from ANY parent the decency of compassion at the time of their child's death.
 
Mine is 34, not a minor by any standards. If, God forbid, she were the victim of a homicide, I'd be crazed with grief.

I hate to think anyone would judge me as Excon has judged Martin's parents.
 
Pinkie said:
Well, first, you never asked me if I felt sympathy for Zimmerman's parents. Of course I do -- what a nightmare this must be for them. Not only has their child killed someone, but he's on trial for murder. In their shoes, I'd be ALMOST as distraught as Martin's parents must be.

But all this trashing of Martin and his parents is disturbing, joko. I've known plenty of parents whose teenagers were a holy terror and I've joined them in their dark days of praying that kid will make it 21 without a felony record.

It bothers me that, out of bias towards Martin, you'd withhold from ANY parent the decency of compassion at the time of their child's death.
Click to expand...

And it bothers me your incapability of criticizing their parenting.

You should read my OP again. IF I met parents in their situation in NORMAL circumstances, as civilty I would express sympathy. But this is not ordinary circumstances and I don't know them.

Of the million people who die every day, if I am going to feel sympathy for parents who child dies, it is going to go to the parents of a truly innocent young child of theirs dying in the hospital of disease. Do we devote sympathy to TM's parents because politicians put HIS death all over the media? Does that make sympathy for them of such great importance - yet none for the parents whose young daughter disappeared and they hope against hopelessness or for the parents whose child is raped and murdered?

The media focus does NOT define the focus of my sympathies.

I do not buy the TM was a "child" BS. He was adult size and he was ACTING like an adult. Nearly always, if a person his age engages in extreme violent assault, rape or murder, the court will "certify" they are "adults." TM was not acting like a child. He was acting like a man.

I do have different views of violence between men. I have stated before I am untroubled by TM's death - but if it had gone the other way and GZ died I also would be untroubled. Both of them walked into violence. Therefore however it turned out is how it turned out.

I suspect most parents are not AS close to their child as I was to my oldest daughter. I was a STRICT parent, but also very protective and extremely involved in her life. But for her, I would be illiterate as but for my not actually attending classes with her, I otherwise completely went thru school with her. I had absolute rules of behavior for her and the sanctions imposed in broken were preknown and enforced with 100% consistency. I never laid a hand on her, never raised my voice, nor ever told to her in any negative terms about her. But the rules. She had to account for her time. I had to know where she was and who she was with. And I might surprise show up to confirm it true. I had to meet anyone she went with as friends and approve first. I also had to met her potential friends parent(s). No exceptions. I would guess that we averaged talking at least 3 hours a day. Except special occasions, she WOULD be home for dinner every day.

I also am not into platitudes and often reject "correctness" when it doesn't seem correct. TM's parents are trying to use his death to get money from everyone who lives in their poor income neighborhood by using the fact they can't afford lawyers and they have one. Accordingly, I see two apathetic rotten parents whose son would be alive if they had been parents - and now essentially trying to be thieves against their neighbors to profit personally from his death. No, no sympathy for them.

TM's parents should have been parents who devoted their efforts towards him while he was alive for his sake, not become involved parents ONLY after his death seeking financial profit for themselves.

There are MANY lessons about GZ and TM to be learned. One of those is what can happen if parents DON'T responsibly parent their children. That lesson is counter-political goals and correctness so is silenced.
 
Last edited:
Das Sozialist said:
According to PlannedParenthood.org, puberty in Males does not end until the age of 20. Trayvon was 17.

Puberty in Males, Planned Parenthood
Click to expand...

When do boys start puberty?Boys usually start puberty when they're around 10 or 12 years old, though some start a little sooner and others a little later. (Boys start a little later than girls do.) The changes happen because our bodies release several different hormones. Hormones are chemicals that cause changes in our bodies. An early change is that our testicles begin to get bigger. Sometime after that, our penises begin to get bigger too, and pubic hair starts to grow on our testicles and above our penises.
 
I don't think this is the time to criticize their parenting, joko. Any more than it is the time to criticize Zimmerman's parents.

I know plenty of fine people with terrible kids. To a large degree, how a kid turns out is a crap shoot and if yours did well, it's partially due to luck.

None of us likes to admit this, but it's true.
 
joko104 said:
When do boys start puberty?Boys usually start puberty when they're around 10 or 12 years old, though some start a little sooner and others a little later. (Boys start a little later than girls do.) The changes happen because our bodies release several different hormones. Hormones are chemicals that cause changes in our bodies. An early change is that our testicles begin to get bigger. Sometime after that, our penises begin to get bigger too, and pubic hair starts to grow on our testicles and above our penises.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have changed my remarks if Martin had been 21. Or 41.

But there is a deeper tragedy in losing a 17 year old -- a kid on the cusp of adulthood. All that potential lost.

I had a friend whose daughter was killed at 17 because her date was driving drunk. I'd imagine she was drunk, too. There were days I thought it would have been kinder if he (my friend, the Daddy) had died as well.

 
Pinkie said:
I don't think this is the time to criticize their parenting, joko. Any more than it is the time to criticize Zimmerman's parents.

I know plenty of fine people with terrible kids. To a large degree, how a kid turns out is a crap shoot and if yours did well, it's partially due to luck.

None of us likes to admit this, but it's true.
Click to expand...


I do and don't agree. I DO think parents have SIGNIFICANCE influence and OFTEN decisive. BUT good parents can have a child that turns out rotten and visa versa. I don't think its a crap shoot because I do think parents are relevant. So I more disagree than agree, although do think that sometimes good parents' kids go bad. BUT maybe there needs to be discussion of what being a "good parent" means.

While all my daughter's friends had "good parents" by almost all accepted standards, few did much to also prepare their children to be adults. They do little to teach them the realities of adult life on many levels. They also tend (in my opinion) to allow too much liberty and also too much unverified trust. So while her friends are "good kids" - over half of them became immediately lost upon graduating HS, many incapable of leaving home even if having the grades and economics to go on to college or otherwise move on in life.

Do you think TM, from what we know of him, was prepared to enter a successful adult life when he turned 18?

How MANY times has it been said it is GZ's fault because he shouldn't have gotten out of his truck. Their logic is that if he had not gotten out of the truck, this wouldn't have happened. The latter is true of course.

Yet if TM's father had grounded him for being on his 3rd school suspension and the reasons for it, this wouldn't have happened either.

I don't know his parents, so I feel no sense of emotions towards them. Billions of people it the world, I see far, far, far, far more terrible loses of parents online and in the media and even in my real life.
 
joko104 said:
When do boys start puberty?Boys usually start puberty when they're around 10 or 12 years old, though some start a little sooner and others a little later. (Boys start a little later than girls do.) The changes happen because our bodies release several different hormones. Hormones are chemicals that cause changes in our bodies. An early change is that our testicles begin to get bigger. Sometime after that, our penises begin to get bigger too, and pubic hair starts to grow on our testicles and above our penises.
Click to expand...

Puberty is a process and it does not end until about 20 years old, Trayvon was 17, he was in the middle of that process and he was below the age of completion for that specific process. Do you consider 13 year old children adults?
 
Das Sozialist said:
Puberty is a process and it does not end until about 20 years old, Trayvon was 17, he was in the middle of that process and he was below the age of completion for that specific process. Do you consider 13 year old children adults?
Click to expand...

I don't care to argue a bandy over words with you.
 
Let me try a softer approach.

Given the HUGE publicity and focus, this COULD have been an opportunity for our society to discuss parenting and reconsider what makes for good and failed parenting. Is it really that the children are happy and secure at home with a friendly relationship with their parents - or is it more than that?

This would seem particularly relevant in relation to African American children, though also all children.

I can provide links but this is well known:

The murder rate of African American males as high at 1 in 8 by age 45. While murder rates continue to fall, they continue to rise among African American teens.
There is a disproportionate black population in prison and with criminal records.
Unemployment among young black males is nearly 50%.
72% of black children do not have a father in their home.

TM was caught with and empty drug bag in school, vandalism, evidence of theft, truancy, vandalism, and on his 3rd suspension - this time 2 weeks of no school. With this, his mother sent him to his worthless father - who gave him $50 to wander the street at night and then to have him be the supervisor of his younger sibling while the father when off to a social club gathering hours away for the rest of the weekend.

Should that parenting be questioned? Is this opportunity to discuss parenting, rather than lamenting THIS particular black teens death ONLY because politicians initially declared it a white on black hate crime?

In my opinion, this was an opportunity to have a REAL discussion on parenting, not joining in with those parents to rage at everyone else being to blame. NOTHING about how this case is being discussed or handled will benefit black teens or anyone.
 
joko104 said:
No, I don't buy the logic of "child" and I do think it a serious lose of discussion concerning parents who go on the ATTACK blaming EVERYONE ELSE - when the fact is their son was into drugs (fact), vandalism (fact), theft (highly indicated), and on his THIRD suspension, currently out of school for TWO WEEKS on suspension -
... for which their response, or at least the fathers', was to give him $50 to go wander the street with and then having him look after his younger sibling while the father went of to party in with Masons hours away leaving his 2 sons alone - supervised by his pothead out-of-control 17 year old.

The directly TM was rapidly going was a crime wave waiting to happen.

By the "child" logic, then everyone agrees we should express no sympathy to parents of soldiers seriously and permanent crippled in battle - because they lived and are no longer under age 18. We should have no sympathy for anyone imprisoned for years falsely - being over age 17. As long as someone is over age 17 and alive, we should never express any sympathy if still alive.

THAT is what is being claimed - after everyone agrees that total lack of any parental supervision, discipline and control for their child is 100% entirely acceptable.

Where is the sympathy for GZ's parents? I have not seen one word on the forum or media. Their son was violently attacked and harmed. He has been jailed for self defense. His reputation totally trashed by politicians and many others.Death threats against him. His future destroyed regardless. His parents, just for being his parents, had to also leave their homes, go into hiding and even death threats against them.

I would like to see ANYONE post ANY link of sympathy for them. There aren't any, are there?

The parenting of TM didn't begin the night his father gave him $50 to go wander the streets with while on his 3rd and 2 week long being suspended fom school. It was a lifetime of failed parenting leading to where TM was at in his increasingly troubled and defiant life also increasingly into crime.

And I do not agree it is impossible to keep a 17 year old at home when he/she didn't want to be. I did it all the time. The punishment/sanctions for breaking curfew, for not being home when required to be so, was known and absolute. The rules alway were absolute and this became so routine that by age 17 they were so expected there was disappoint if that supervision wasn't there - such as MY 17 year calling to ask us why hadn't we called yet to ask where she was and who she was with. She came to appreciate this level of attention and focus by her (adoptive) parents.

A parent should try to be their child's best friend, but the child should know that exactly NO ONE is more interested in them than their parents. And more than ever when the child is in trouble or misbehaving. TM's mother dumped in on his father and his father dumped him on the street with $50, planning to totally abandon him the remainder of the weekend.

NOR do I think this is irrelevant. It is known that TM was into drugs, vandalism, theft, truancy, and repeatedly suspended from school. To give him some martyre/hero status - and her parents as heros for champion accusing others - is a terrible mistake particularly within the African-American community given how most already have fathers who are absent and don't give a damn like his father, and do have higher problems on average in school, with violent, and with police.

If TM had even half assed parents in his life, I do not believe this would have happened. Once those rotten parents decided they had all the time in the world for their son was only AFTER his death and when they believed they could get a pile of money by suing their neighbors. When they did that, I think they cashed in their sympathy chips. Their failures as parents is more responsible for TM's death than are their neighbors or the property association - which have NO responsibility whatsoever.


Where is the sympathy for GZ's parents?
Click to expand...

I have great sympathy for Zimmerman's parents too, but at least their son is alive. Because you haven't experienced the loss of a child yourself, you cannot know what Martin's parents feel. Just be grateful you can't.

As I've said, people who are in deep grief can make some pretty crazy and reckless decisions. (Look at the divorce rate of bereaved parents.) And most of them aren't preyed upon by opportunists who make their "livings" as race-baiters.

Yeah, I give Martin's parents a pass. They aren't themselves right now and never will be the same anyway. All the attention is a diversion for them, a distraction. At some point they will have to move through their grief, and this is terribly hard work. Some bereaved parents never do--I'm not sure Cindy Sheehan ever has.
 
Das Sozialist said:
You asked me to present evidence, it seemed like you did.
Click to expand...

I don't give a damn how Planned Parenthood defines puberty or anything else.

A 5' 10" 158 pound male out alone and engaging in a fight with an adult - rather than calling 911 or exiting the sceme - is not a "child" for any normal usages of the word, and whether that word is accurate is also irrelevant. At 15 I was on my own with a child and could have beat 3 GZs to death quickly and easily.

Such as Sharon showing a photo of a 12 year old Martin or lamenting the death a "child" is just BS crap to me, is counter intuitive, and only a diversion from reality to searching for slogans as diversion to what are the real issues and topics.

I see no relevancy to age whether a 17 year old or 19 year old rapes or kills someone and I do not see any relevence whether TM was 17, 18, 25 or 45.
 
joko104 said:
I don't give a damn how Planned Parenthood defines puberty or anything else.

A 5' 10" 158 pound male out alone and engaging in a fight with an adult - rather than calling 911 or exiting the sceme - is not a "child" for any normal usages of the word, and whether that word is accurate is also irrelevant. At 15 I was on my own with a child and could have beat 3 GZs to death quickly and easily.
Click to expand...

Trayvon wasn't you. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but he was a child, he was under 18.
 
joko104 said:
Let me try a softer approach.

Given the HUGE publicity and focus, this COULD have been an opportunity for our society to discuss parenting and reconsider what makes for good and failed parenting. Is it really that the children are happy and secure at home with a friendly relationship with their parents - or is it more than that?

This would seem particularly relevant in relation to African American children, though also all children.

I can provide links but this is well known:

The murder rate of African American males as high at 1 in 8 by age 45. While murder rates continue to fall, they continue to rise among African American teens.
There is a disproportionate black population in prison and with criminal records.
Unemployment among young black males is nearly 50%.
72% of black children do not have a father in their home.

TM was caught with and empty drug bag in school, vandalism, evidence of theft, truancy, vandalism, and on his 3rd suspension - this time 2 weeks of no school. With this, his mother sent him to his worthless father - who gave him $50 to wander the street at night and then to have him be the supervisor of his younger sibling while the father when off to a social club gathering hours away for the rest of the weekend.

Should that parenting be questioned? Is this opportunity to discuss parenting, rather than lamenting THIS particular black teens death ONLY because politicians initially declared it a white on black hate crime?

In my opinion, this was an opportunity to have a REAL discussion on parenting, not joining in with those parents to rage at everyone else being to blame. NOTHING about how this case is being discussed or handled will benefit black teens or anyone.
Click to expand...

The shooter was a fat, neurotic pillhead who couldn't finish school or hold a job or pay his own rent.. so let's talk about "parenting".
 
=sharon wrote: The shooter was a fat, neurotic pillhead who couldn't finish school or hold a job or pay his own rent.. so let's talk about "parenting".

TM was using or selling drugs at school, a vandal, a thief, never had a job in his life, truant, bully and incapable of acting decent as a student. With this and while on suspension, the mother dumped him off on the father and the father gave him $50 to go wander the street with.

Go ahead, actually talk about parenting rather than just post.

And I think people should note your "fat" sneer. Explain your opinion on "fat" (as you define it) adults in relation to their parents.
 
sharon said:
The shooter was a fat, neurotic pillhead who couldn't finish school or hold a job or pay his own rent.. so let's talk about "parenting".
Click to expand...

Wow. Sounds like there is some other parents we should talk about.
 
joko104 said:
Let me try a softer approach.

Given the HUGE publicity and focus, this COULD have been an opportunity for our society to discuss parenting and reconsider what makes for good and failed parenting. Is it really that the children are happy and secure at home with a friendly relationship with their parents - or is it more than that?
Click to expand...

No, this is not the time to pass judgment on the Martins' parenting. I'm hard-pressed to imagine anything crueler.

This would seem particularly relevant in relation to African American children, though also all children.
Click to expand...

I don't have a black child and I don't think parenting is a black vs. white thing. We all want to raise happy, healthy adults, joko.

I can provide links but this is well known:

The murder rate of African American males as high at 1 in 8 by age 45. While murder rates continue to fall, they continue to rise among African American teens.
There is a disproportionate black population in prison and with criminal records.
Unemployment among young black males is nearly 50%.
72% of black children do not have a father in their home.
Click to expand...

Tragic facts which have to do with the persistence of racism and the effects of poverty, but not with any black parents' parenting and certainly not with the Martins', as to whom none of these facts apply as far as I know.
 
sharon said:
Under US law. Trayvon was a minor.
Click to expand...
And still a young adult. Go figure, huh?




Pinkie said:
I hate to think anyone would judge me as Excon has judged Martin's parents.
Click to expand...
If you were doing the same things Trayvon's parents are, then yes, you would be responsible, and I would pass judgment on you for your actions that were wrong.
There is no reason not to.
It is far past the point to make excuses for them because they lost a son through his own actions.


They are wrong for what they have, and are doing. And because they continue to do so, they should be held in contempt and called out every time they do something wrong.


Pinkie said:
I don't think this is the time to criticize their parenting, joko.
Click to expand...
Bs! Anytime is fine.


Pinkie said:
To a large degree, how a kid turns out is a crap shoot and if yours did well, it's partially due to luck.

None of us likes to admit this, but it's true.
Click to expand...
While there is always exceptions, the truth is that you are wrong. It is directly related to how the parents raise their kids.



Das Sozialist said:
Trayvon wasn't you. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but he was a child, he was under 18.
Click to expand...
Trayvon was a teenager.

Old enough to be emancipated at 16, and then old enough to join the military at 17.

He was a young adult.




Pinkie said:
No, this is not the time to pass judgment on the Martins' parenting.
Click to expand...
Yes it most definitely is.



Pinkie said:
Tragic facts which have to do with the persistence of racism and the effects of poverty, but not with any black parents' parenting and certainly not with the Martins', as to whom none of these facts apply as far as I know.
Click to expand...
Then you truly have drunk the kool-aid.
 
Das Sozialist said:
Both require parental consent.
Click to expand...
iLOL
Doesn't matter.

The first one can be done by first requesting/petitioning for an "guardian ad litem" from the court.
Once established, having them sign.
All without parental consent. Go figure, huh?

The second does not need parental consent once the person has been emancipated.


So like I said:
Trayvon was a teenager.

Old enough to be emancipated at 16, and then old enough to join the military at 17.

He was a young adult.​
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
iLOL
Doesn't matter.

The first one can be done by first requesting an "guardian ad litem" from the court.
Once established, having them sign.
All without parental consent. Go figure, huh?]
Click to expand...

Requiring your parents to sign is requiring their consent. He wasn't a young adult, he was a child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom