To think there is a sub-class of people in our society

[bluewanda]

Baby boy died in 'filthy' home with 'traces of cocaine in his system'

https://mol.im/a/12545263

What the hell is wrong with these people. How the fuck can they subject an innocent baby to such a horrific life?! These children should be removed at birth because they don’t stand a chance. It is so utterly depressing.

This is the only post worth reading. Answer THIS question, OP. Not all survivors of abuse/neglect are abusers, but i'd say a good proportion of abusers are survivors of abuse and neglect - in the sense they made it out alive, but obviously a derilect childhood isn't a great basis for a functioning adult.

It's like child-on-child sexual abuse - in the VAST majority of cases, the child who is abusive/inappropriate is themselves the victim of abuse elsewhere and acting out. Is that child s hideous abuser or a helpless victim? Or both? The answer, as always, is COMPLICATED which nobody likes. Much easier to be able to have hero's and villains, angels and monsters.

This poor child will never have a chance now to see what he could have made of the piss poor hand he was dealt. But if he had lived, at what point on his journey from adorable, unfortunate baby to troubled adult would you lot wash your hands of him?

Nobody knows if people are born with psychopathy. Most psychopaths have either a history of some kind of brain trauma or a horrendous childhood that meant their neurological pathways did not develop normally. Most agree that genes may predispose someone to psychopathy, but there is usually a trigger that unleashes it. This makes me think that nurture is the most important factor.

In the story in the original post, it says the mother was known to social services for mental health problems. There is nothing in the story to suggest there was deliberate abuse involved. Severe mental health problems, as seems to be the case here, leads to addiction which leads to neglect. Mental health never receives the funding and support it should do and sadly these cases will go on happening while this continues.

It's all terribly sad.

Not everyone is the same. People respond differently to trauma. Some shrug it off. Some react against it. Some replicate it. Some are just broken by it. I am not seeking to denigrate your achievements by saying, not everyone who we t through what you went through COULD do what you did. People are built differently.

You say you knew it was wrong; what gave you that awareness? It took me until university, where I met a very wide range of people with "normal" families, to realise that my (non-abusive but dysfunctional) childhood was not "normal" (or within the range of). It messed with my head! You know what you know and most kids normalise it because it's all they know (until they see something that contradixts that belief. What was it for you?

They don't realise they don't have the skills. They've had no role models.

I was intrigued by another poster who said that having children is one thing they can do and achieve hence why it’s important.

We grew up in an area of deprivation but did not historically come from such deep deprivation, my mum would say it was sad how the girls and boys of my age would just follow their parents. Into smoking, drinking and then teen pregnancies.

From what I've read the Mum's MH plummeted around that two month mark. She only shared it with the GP. That didn't trigger a SS referral. It was noted on the GP system, though. The lack of CP plan meant little engagement with services and little attempts by the SWs. There will be criticism of all those involved.

@oakleaffy It's always both nature and nurture. In differing proportions depending on the behaviour we're talking about.

Sure. But not if it's used as a diversion from discussing genetics, or a way to sneak dogmatic environmentalism back in through the back door.

Is this one of those stories where the local MP offers 'Thoughts and prayer for little XXXXX" via their twitter page, and the local council announces "Lessons will be learned", only for the same thing to happen 3 months later?

So there wasn't any other checks or home visits?
The mother must have known the other services etc out there given all the input that would have occurred prior to her other children being removed.

Your genes are a large part of the reason you act the way you do. It's simply not the case that these people's behaviour is 100% caused by 'problems in society' - i.e. the environment.

It is 'ingrained' in them in the sense that they had a genetic predisposition to such behaviours and/or were already so damaged at birth they were predisposed to such behaviours. No one has said that 'if they had been brought up differently they'd still be scum.' What a ridiculous thing to claim.

So you are justifying removing the rights of women from puberty on the basis of their parents' situation? Because they inevitably have bad genetics and need to be erased from the gene pool prior to having a child themselves, as they are predestined to be murderers, low intellect, criminals, a waste of benefits, housing, food and life?

I don't give a fuck about your petty digs and casual misogyny. You're advocating for another holocaust.

I'm surprised and heartened that it took almost 12 hours for the 'so you're saying' and holocaust shrieking to start. There's hope for humanity yet.

To all those who think investment in services is the way to achieve greater equality and try to break these cycles, I would like to ask a question.

When these services have been on offer, do you think they are actually utilised by the people who need them? I can tell you, they're not. You can't force people to engage. That's the problem.

Under Labour, the Sure Start centres came into being. The support on offer wasn't properly targeted AT ALL. The end result was a load of mums went to these groups who didn't really need them, because they were free. Only one mum who came religiously would have fit the mould of "needing support". She was 17 with 2 kids and when she was ready to work, childcare was provided for her (no problem with this)

On a couple of occasions, a problem family near us were ferried to and from these groups by a paid for taxi, but mum never engaged with the groups (or her kids)

The vast, vast majority of the mums at the groups knew how to parent appropriately already.

The only way investment in services works is if people are FORCED to engage. How you do that, I don't know. But hoping they'll change because there are services on offer, just doesnt work.

Absolute bollocks. Yes, there are genetic predisposition a to things like addiction, and obviously intelligence level is largely genetic, but the impact on your personality is miniscule compared to how much of it comes from your background and the way you're treated in your early years.

It's about what you perceive is normal. If every house you see growing up is filthy, then you're not going to put a high priority on cleanliness yourself.

If you grew up with your parents shouting and swearing at you in the street, then that's the model you're likely to follow when parenting your own kids.

If your Dad used to kick the shit out of you when drunk, then you're less likely to leave when your husband starts doing the same.

None of that is nature, it's not stuff that magically applies to you the moment you are conceived.

It's nurture, it's your normal, it's how you see the people around you behave.

The idea that some people are genetically "worse" than others is frankly fucking disgusting.

I do get tired of the government cuts/SS blame all the time when a child dies at the hands of gross negligence/abuse from the parents. The parents stand as the culprits in every way here. Their upbringing and social status have no relevance, they are an underclass of feral vile humans.

There is an amazing, yet gut wrenching scene in Law and Order:SVU when Whoopi Goldbergs character verbally rinses the prosecution when she's being pulled up on fixing a care record after the death of a child under SS. It has stayed with me and is playing in my head as I read through the replies.

That poor baby.

Addictions, personalities and intelligence are different things. You're aware that intelligence is highly genetically heritable. You understand that there are genetic predispositions to addiction. Yet you haven't come across the fact that personality traits are also highly genetically heritable?

I'm not entirely clear on what you're arguing, but intelligence and propensity to addiction alone have huge impacts on people's behaviours. Although I'm not sure why you singled those two out.

Some people are more prone to criminal behaviours than others, partly for genetic reasons. As I said already, I know that triggers strong negative emotions in people and causes them to start cursing and swearing and all that. It's still true though.

Interestingly, I don't know if you're aware that accepting that intelligence is 1) measurable at all and 2) 'largely genetic' is considered in many circles to be 'frankly fucking disgusting', eugenicist and verging on fascist. I'm not sure you understand the implications of those statements.

Yes a sub class who shouldn’t breed. Disgusting vile selfish people. It’s heartbreaking. That poor baby

OK, I think we're talking at cross purposes slightly here.

My issue isn't that the idea that certain personality traits, or intelligence levels, or predispositions to addictions have a basis in genetics. My issue is that there are people on this thread who think that having those genetics makes you a "worse" person. Makes you a subclass, or subhuman. That's the opinion that I'm finding abhorrent.

To use a personal example, I have a problem with alcohol. There may be a genetic component to this, my Dads relationship with it isn't great, and my Grandad was a full blown alcoholic.

But a far bigger reason for my issue with it is that I was born to very young parents who weren't really ready to give up their friends and social lives, so as a child I spent huge parts of my weekend down the rugby club, or the pub. As a result I learnt that I really liked the pub, it was full of people I knew and liked, it felt warm and safe and fun.

I grew up, started drinking and that warm and safe feeling transferred to the beer itself. I had a kid and stopped going to the pub, but drank at home instead. So, my child isn't going to have that feeling about the pub, but maybe I've normalised drinking too much at home for her instead.

Had my parents been avid hikers or film goers instead, would I still have an alcohol problem? Maybe, but it seems a lot less likely.

Or a more generic example, let's say two people are genetically predisposed to anger. One of them grows up in a household with domestic abuse, one doesn't. Which one is going to think it's normal or acceptable to hit his wife.

I'm not denying that genetics play a part in who you are, I'm just opposed to the viewpoint that certain people are doomed or should be classed as "other" because of those genetics.
Plenty of people are screwed over because of who their parents are, but it's not the genes they passed on that are the problem.

@Bobbotgegrinch

I don't believe anyone is arguing that simply having those genes makes you a member of the subclass. For all I know I could have genes predisposing me to heroin addition, but because I've never tried the stuff, no one is including me in the subclass.

What is true is that some behavioural traits are better for people and for society than others, in a given environment. A genetic predisposition to alcoholism is a bad thing for anyone in a western country to have. It's completely neutral in value if you're a strict Muslim living in Saudi because you're not having any anyway. These are value judgments, of course, but they're largely uncontroversial.

Other similar value judgments are certainly more controversial. Higher neuroticism, for example, is a bad thing for the individual's mental health but has benefits also. Their children may be overprotected but they're unlikely to die of neglect. They'll probably work hard at their job motivated by fear of making a mistake.

It follows that value judgments about the genetics underlying such traits are also possible and inevitable, and disputable too.

Your personal experience makes sense, but it fits perfectly with what I've said. I don't happen to know what the breakdown is of genes vs environment when it comes to predisposition to alcoholism but that will vary by individual anyway. It's not one gene, and environments vary hugely.

I agree that someone genetically predisposed to anger/violence is more likely to engage in violence themselves if their childhood environment included it. But that's simply another way of saying that behaviours are the result of a combination of genes and environment!

I'm not arguing that anyone is doomed by their genes. No personality trait, for example, is 100% genetically heritable. And I believe we do all have free will, albeit often very little, which is not measurable by psychology or in any other way and is entirely separate from both genetics and environment.

I refuse to use the language of 'othering' because I despise the philosophy that produced that concept so I won't address that point. People's genes, all of our genes, are both part of our problems and part of our strengths.

The bar is set too low. It's a sweet idea to maximise the idea that it's right to keep the child with the parent as the default.

Ideally there should be more state support, more state intervention and more state scrutiny of those receiving state money. I believe this is the model in Scandinavia.

It does look a lot like you are advocating eugenics though.

Quite agree, I'm fed up of the excuses that are invariably made.

Sigh As always it's a shit storm where the underlying causes are complex from the parental backgrounds onwards.

How things look to you is, as the kids say, 'a you problem'. You've been programmed to automatically associate the kinds of words I've used with the term eugenics and with negative emotions. That's all. I've already clearly said that I don't support eugenics. I'm not bothered about getting into that debate with those who do support it because firstly they have a legitimate point, secondly they have enough people shrieking at them, and thirdly there's absolutely no prospect of it happening because those people have no power. They're essentially just letting off steam, which I perfectly understand.

i worked in Child Protection for a number of years, seeing all sorts of abuse/issues.

I would say that, as adults, everyone has the choice as to how they parent. It's not always easy, but the choice is there.

If they can't parent properly, then those babies need to be removed, at an early age, to give them a chance of normality.

No point in cascading it down to another to another generation.🙄