The Dangers of Farmville - If you are a baby

[pam]

This is so sad. A woman killed her 3 month baby for interrupting her session of Farmville.

Woman Kills Baby For Interrupting Farmville Session

[AndrewCothran]

What!?

[Gwen]

i doubt this was the first time she had shaken her baby. was just the time that killed him.

[applepansy]

This is terribly sad.

[shdwlkr]

I am sorry to hear that a game cost a child their life.

farmville I played for awhile but it just got to time consuming the soon to be "ex" got into quite a bit don't know if she still is though.

[Gwen]

the game did not cost a child their life. a mother who was not ready to be a parent took the child's life. i promise you if it were not the game it would have been something else she was consumed in and she would have went into the same rage on the child. i would put good money on the odds that this woman had shaken this child before and would have done it again had he not died this time. it was not the game that killed the child, it just happen to be what the mom was doing when the mom finally did it.

i'm not a farmville advocate, i don't play and have blocked the application. i don't care about farmville. but let's keep the accountability where it belongs.

[AndrewCothran]

the game did not cost a child their life. a mother who was not ready to be a parent took the child's life. i promise you if it were not the game it would have been something else she was consumed in and she would have went into the same rage on the child. i would put good money on the odds that this woman had shaken this child before and would have done it again had he not died this time. it was not the game that killed the child, it just happen to be what the mom was doing when the mom finally did it.

i'm not a farmville advocate, i don't play and have blocked the application. i don't care about farmville. but let's keep the accountability where it belongs.

extreme evil or extreme psychosis or both ..

[Gwen]

i've tried to be very careful not to judge the mom. it could have been any number of things. could just be an immature selfish young mom. could be a young mother who is suffering from depression and thus not behaving rationally or coping well with the demands of being a mom. could be a mom that is addicted to games and the addiction doesn't behave rationally. could have anger issues. could just be ill educated and thus unprepared to be a mom. i could go on and on. the reality is it never should have happened. i hope the ppl closest to her figure out what the cause was so she can get the help she needs.

[TL10]

What's even worse is that she stopped to smoke for a few minutes and resumed shaking the baby afterwards.

[shdwlkr]

still what a sad thing to happen over a game

[Dr T]

awww

[Wingnut]

What's even worse is that she stopped to smoke for a few minutes and resumed shaking the baby afterwards.

No, I'm pretty sure that's not worse than shaking her baby to death.

Sheesh.

[pam]

No, I'm pretty sure that's not worse than shaking her baby to death.

Sheesh.

I don't think TL10 meant it quite the way it came out. I took it more as to add insult to injury kind of thing.

[Mahone]

I'm under the impression that what he meant was, she stopped to smoke (i.e. had plenty of time to calm down) but then resumed the shaking. So basically, it wasn't a spontaneous moment of madness. The "attack" on her child lasted for a fair amount of time. That is what I think he meant, which would indeed be worse than a spontaneous spur of the moment thing.

[Dravin]

No, I'm pretty sure that's not worse than shaking her baby to death.

Sheesh.

I'm going with others, the stress isn't on smoking, it's on her stopping for a few minutes and then resuming the behavior.

[Wingnut]

Fair enough, but TL10 is the one that emphasized -- with bold and underline -- the smoking part, not the resuming of shaking.

[Dravin]

Fair enough, but TL10 is the one that emphasized -- with bold and underline -- the smoking part, not the resuming of shaking.

Because "to smoke" is smack dab in the middle of what he wanted to highlight. I wouldn't have highlighted the following way either: What's even worse is that she stopped to smoke for a few minutes and resumed shaking the baby afterwards. Could it have been inflected in other ways to communicate the same basic point? Sure, but it isn't the only way. Keep in mind the incredulity isn't that she resumed the behavior, the incredulity is that she stopped and then resumed the behavior (Yes I know, logically to resume something you had to stop it but incredulity doesn't quite work that way).

The article in question has this line:

This angered Tobias, who told authorities that she shook the baby, had a cigarette to calm herself down, then shook him again.

Which he was most likely paraphrasing. Yes everything that wasn't critically important to the point could have been removed (like the fact she's a she) but how many of us complain about the stupid SUV/Toyota/Pick-up that almost ran us off I-15 (or interstate of choice)? The type of car isn't critical to the point, nor is the road name, it is there to help form an accurate mental picture of the event being described. I'm fairly sure if she'd stopped to count to 100 instead that would have been mentioned instead of smoking. I find it doubtful you'd be commenting about how counting to 100 is not worse than shaking a baby to death. Heck, if he had removed "to smoke" I doubt you'd be saying that stopping is not worse that killing a child either.

I'm thinking your WoW Soapboxdar pinged and you pounced. :)

Edited October 29, 2010 by Dravin

[AndrewCothran]

Because "to smoke" is smack dab in the middle of what he wanted to highlight. I wouldn't have highlighted the following way either: What's even worse is that she stopped to smoke for a few minutes and resumed shaking the baby afterwards. Could it have been inflected in other ways to communicate the same basic point? Sure, but it isn't the only way. Keep in mind the incredulity isn't that she resumed the behavior, the incredulity is that she stopped and then resumed the behavior.

The article in question has this line:

Which he was most likely paraphrasing. Yes everything that wasn't critically important to the point could have been removed (like the fact she's a she) but how many of us complain about the stupid SUV/Toyota/Pick-up that almost ran us off I-15 (or interstate of choice)? The type of car isn't critical to the point, nor is the road name, it is there to help form an accurate mental picture of the event being described. I'm fairly sure if she'd stopped to count to 100 instead that would have been mentioned instead of smoking. I find it doubtful you'd be commenting about how counting to 100 is not worse than shaking a baby to death. Heck, if he had removed "to smoke" I doubt you'd be saying that stopping is not worse that killing a child either.

I'm thinking your WoW Soapboxdar pinged and you pounced. :)

Though i know this was not written to me i just want to put it out there .

This is getting on my nerves ..why is it that we have to constantly justify every thing we post

Its as if we have to scrutinize one anothers intentions its retarded and im done with it ..

i make mistakes so does everyone else on this site but from now on ,, i dont give a monkeys ..and im not going to justify myself to anyone else .

KUDOOS TO THE ABOVE RESPONSE .

What happened is so sad it is unspeakably tragic ...and I think that TL agrees so there

Edited October 29, 2010 by AndrewCothran

[pam]

why is it that we have to constantly justify every thing we post

Mainly because as in any public forum, it is sometimes hard to express oneself in written form or to be understand by the reader as well.

Therefore, it is not uncommon to query or have someone explain exactly what they mean. It might always seem like having to justify but a lot of the time it's just asking for clarification.

[AndrewCothran]

Mainly because as in any public forum, it is sometimes hard to express oneself in written form or to be understand by the reader as well.

Therefore, it is not uncommon to query or have someone explain exactly what they mean. It might always seem like having to justify but a lot of the time it's just asking for clarification.

I see what you are saying Pam but honestly its going a bit too far .. and as i said i don't give a monkeys anymore .. and i think the feeling is mutual so lets leave it there shall we ?. At least I will.

[Wingnut]

I'm fairly sure if she'd stopped to count to 100 instead that would have been mentioned instead of smoking. I find it doubtful you'd be commenting about how counting to 100 is not worse than shaking a baby to death. Heck, if he had removed "to smoke" I doubt you'd be saying that stopping is not worse that killing a child either.

I'm thinking your WoW Soapboxdar pinged and you pounced. :)

No, I would have. There's nothing worse than the fact that she killed her baby.

[Dravin]

No, I would have. There's nothing worse than the fact that she killed her baby.

You are saying, if the sentence was constructed similar but with "to smoke" replaced with "to count to 100" you would have parsed it as him saying that counting to 100 is worse than killing a child? You are aware that the phrase "What's worse" is generally used to highlight a condition or circumstance that makes the story worse/more difficult to accept/more tragic?

If I say my car broke down but what's worse is that I have an appointment to go to I am not stating having an appointment is worse than my car breaking down. Such a reading is rather tortured.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Dravin

[Wingnut]

Such a reading is rather tortured.

So is this argument.

[Wingnut]

I've always been a pretty literal person. I don't have Asperger's, and anyone who knows me knows that I have no problem with sarcasm whatsoever. Nonetheless, I still often have trouble extrapolating meaning from things when I read them literally. If I were to have made the same observation that TL10 made, it would have said something more along the lines of, "What really gets me is that she stopped to smoke before resuming shaking the baby." It doesn't say that it's worse, just that it stood out to me in the story.

Perhaps that's the problem here. I stand by my original comment directed at TL10, though.

[pam]

Moving on.