I support martin's position on this. He is making perfect sense. In fact, anyone with even just a little bit of common sense can see that.
Yea, you're so right. I guess Faulk WAS married at the time, and both pregnancies were planned and responsible decisions. Brilliant indeed.
I do not know what his family life was like at that time. I do not know if his kids were brought into a loving enviroment where they thrived. I do not know if he and the mother were ready for their (apparent) unplanned kids. Do you? If so, enlighten us. That is martin's point. I guess you can't see such a simple thing either?
Is every individual's mind really so trained by society in such a way that they are not able to look at individual situations rather than taking the typical approach of generalizing things?
No, but the same question could be asked if whether society's standards now include such a great fear of offending someone to the point that people are unwilling to make stand for fear of the exception. Even if it's just the possibility of an exception. Just let this thread die already. It's clear that some of us are realistic and some of us are apologists for irresponsible behavior. And I don't care how you cut it. A high school kid with two kids of his own to a woman that's not his wife and with no means to support himself or the guarantee of such means in the near-term is irresponsible. Sorry if I offended half this board and associated bastard children, but that's the way it is.
It is clear that some of us are aplogists for irresponsible behavior? Look, chill. In simple terms, all I said was I agree with martin's position in that we do not know what his situation was at the time and whether or not they were good parents and were able to provide a nurturing upbringing for their kids. The tone of your messages is downright disrespectful. There is no need for that. :dis:
