On December 31 2011 22:52 Aeres wrote: I'm really torn on this. Of course, having your children die due to gross negligence is horrible, but I think what the father reasoned was that a poor family of 14 children and no income, simply isn't as well off as a family of 12 children with a source of income. I cannot condone the mindset that makes such a decision (in that the survival of the father's source of money is more important than the lives of 1/7th of his children), but crises warp the way your mind operates. I can understand how he might have justified his choice, but that will never make it the ideal and correct one.
That, or the father simply never considered his children, thinking that the eldest would be responsible enough to assist the others in such a dangerous event. Might be that he never doubted that all his children would be safe. Still a shitty justification, but there you go.
The whole thing just makes me sad, and wish that sometime in the near future, no one is impoverished enough that they need to decide between their chickens and their children.
On another note, was it ever explained why the fire started in the first place? I hope the investigators examine the scene with a fine-toothed comb to find the cause and prevent future occurrences. It'd be best for everyone if the father's decision never had to be made by anyone else again.
There are hundreds of things that could factor in in his decision, none of which are mentioned in the article. For all we know, he never had a decision to make. It's impossible to pass judgement or even have an opinion when no facts what so ever are presented.
Well, it should be impossible, this is the interwebz though where rational and critical thinking is a rarity.
I suppose you're right, Longshanks. It'd be best for people to reserve judgment until all the facts are out. However, it's quite unlikely that any of us will ever know the full story, with all the nuances that went with it...
Wow, my dad just told me a story about a guy who had a chicken as a pet and taught the chicken tricks. There was another guy who was arguing with the guy who had the chicken. The other guy said, "How can chickens be smart if their brain is the size of a pea." Mind you, they are arguing with heavy Russian accents.
Scenario 1 - The father saves his children first, his fighting chickens die and he no longer has a job, loses his home and all his belongings and can no longer provide support for his children.
Scenario 2 - The father saves his fighting chickens, 2 of his children die but he still has a job and can still buy food for his other children
13 children starving vs 11 children having food to eat. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made, when you can go days without eating, saving the only source of income you have outweighs putting priority on saving your children, even more so when you have 13 children
Not to justify what he did, there is no reason why he should not have saved the chickens before his childrens, but as father of 13 kids maybe he thought, if my chickens die who and how is gonna feed my kids? It´s a tough spot to be in, don´t judge with no fundaments!.
“Bitbit bitbit niya ‘yung mga manok tapos sinasabi nila sa kanya, ‘’Yung anak mo nandoon,’ pero wala lang siyang pakialam,” said one of Orlando’s children.
On December 31 2011 21:30 RogerX wrote: It took an hour to take out the fire ? o.O
Must've been huge. I feel sorry for the children :/
Actually the fire razed 25 houses it says. The firefighters taking it down in only 1 hour seems a bit incredible.
I feel bad for the 'chickened out' pun getting banned. It is the best in this thread by far.
The father most likely thought his kids are safe when he first went for the roosters first. And then the fire was getting too big to go for the kids. My dad used to punish me for whenever my little brother did something wrong, as if I was supposed to be his guardian or something, although the age difference is only 2 years.
You would be surprised how small the houses here. Imagine Favelas but in planes and not in mountains.
I looked at this post scratching my head, but then I realized you meant plains.
Also lol@ everyone up in arms about the banned guy with the pun. It was funny, but a little bit in bad taste. It's only two days, he'll live.
On December 31 2011 21:30 RogerX wrote: It took an hour to take out the fire ? o.O
Must've been huge. I feel sorry for the children :/
Actually the fire razed 25 houses it says. The firefighters taking it down in only 1 hour seems a bit incredible.
I feel bad for the 'chickened out' pun getting banned. It is the best in this thread by far.
The father most likely thought his kids are safe when he first went for the roosters first. And then the fire was getting too big to go for the kids. My dad used to punish me for whenever my little brother did something wrong, as if I was supposed to be his guardian or something, although the age difference is only 2 years.
You would be surprised how small the houses here. Imagine Favelas but in planes and not in mountains.
I looked at this post scratching my head, but then I realized you meant plains.
Also lol@ everyone up in arms about the banned guy with the pun. It was funny, but a little bit in bad taste. It's only two days, he'll live.
After reading through the whole thing multiple times, I'm not sure why everyone is so convinced that he purposefully let his children die. His wife said he did, but he said that he didn't, and that other people (children, so probably not a very good idea anyways) were in charge of the two children who died. Perhaps I am simply too optimistic, but I think its a little to early to jump to conclusions. Still, if he did allow his children to day by saving some roosters, there is not a severe enough punishment in the world.
On January 01 2012 01:54 Mordanis wrote: After reading through the whole thing multiple times, I'm not sure why everyone is so convinced that he purposefully let his children die. His wife said he did, but he said that he didn't, and that other people (children, so probably not a very good idea anyways) were in charge of the two children who died. Perhaps I am simply too optimistic, but I think its a little to early to jump to conclusions. Still, if he did allow his children to day by saving some roosters, there is not a severe enough punishment in the world.
Yeah. I mean, he was certainly not heartless. He saved his chicken for cock's sake. If he knew he had a chance of saving those children, he would have. Anyways, a friend of mine heard through the radio earlier that the father is now jailed for negligence.
On December 31 2011 15:06 Elbee wrote: That's pretty depressing to think he'd save chickens over his own kids
It's easy to judge him while we're sitting behind computers lol. If his economic situation is bad and those chickens were earning the food on his table then it's quite understandable he saved the chickens actually.
I know. its sad and pretty unpleasant, but the reality is that 200+ years ago, children were replaceable, business wasn't. If you were a venetian glass blower and told family trade secrets to your friends, you family actually killed you with their own hands. This is basically death by hands off. And Suppose its in your first world country, but you lose all forms of insurance. Then suppose you basically have something in your house that grants you money. Are you going to neglect trying to save your livelihood? Let's say you sac it for trying to get your children out first. Now you and ALL your children stave and die.
First world country problems: He hacked my Xbox! World problems before first world existed: We live day by day and any person or disaster could deprive us of life and survivability.
On January 01 2012 01:54 Mordanis wrote: After reading through the whole thing multiple times, I'm not sure why everyone is so convinced that he purposefully let his children die. His wife said he did, but he said that he didn't, and that other people (children, so probably not a very good idea anyways) were in charge of the two children who died. Perhaps I am simply too optimistic, but I think its a little to early to jump to conclusions. Still, if he did allow his children to day by saving some roosters, there is not a severe enough punishment in the world.
this too. its called News SPINNING. People always want thing to be more tragic and sound worse than they are. Drama makes up most of the "entertainment" market. People gossip for fun. Its what people do. Now, if its your children and tjhey die, of course you're going to be emotionally upset and lambast the person you believe is responsible for their deaths. ANYONE does that. People near the scene of crimes are least to be believed. We've got study after study of how perception and blind spots and memory all contribute to invalid recounting of events, particularly in a high stress situation.
So, lets not throw rocks but consider that something really sad happened.
Probably a very autistic person. Shouldn't blame him for that. Also maybe he couldn't even reach the children or something. Don't judge so fast people.
On December 31 2011 21:15 toopham wrote: Sometimes Teamliquid forum reminds me of North Korea.
Pretty harsh comparison, but I agree that moderation on TL is getting too strict. You can barely say ur opinion nowadays if it's another opinion then most people have.
Yep. more or less. If you have an opinion that a mod doesnt like, you get banned. If you have an opinion that makes someone else cry because they don't like it, you get banned. I'm not talking about insults, I'm talking about people who might have an unorthodox different opinion about a subject, but cant share it openly. how about a line like this from a mod "You and your opinions are not welcome here". Free speech only goes so far as the personal inclinations of those in power. Thats why people have to fight to protect their speech from oppressive govts in real life.
EPT
