-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Madonna's adoption rejected by judge
- Thread starter Justin Bailey
- Start date
- Status
cloudwalking
300chf ain't shit to me
B!TCH said:
okay, yeah, the fact that you'd even try to turn that around to prove a point tells me that you're some kind of joke character or that you're pissed that madonna is making the headlines again.
even if madonna did beat her kids and lock them up, (which i doubt, since they pretty much accompany her everywhere on her world travels and their photos are constantly in the news), you know that just because someone is wealthy it doesn't exempt them from adoption screening and social services intervention, don't you?
there's no basis of comparison here because THE TWO LIFESTYLES CANNOT BE FUCKING COMPARED. growing up in a loving family that can provide everything for you is better than growing up in a crowded 3rd world orphanage that's likely unable to provide so much as clean drinking water. period. there is no fucking argument here so i don't know why you're trying to argue this. it's not even a matter of opinion, IT'S A FACT.
i only quoted you because you made the fucking retarded claim that someone in an orphanage would have a family. you asked another poster "would you leave your family to live with madonna?" but your point was completely moot, because someone from an orphanage doesn't have a family, and so again, you can't make a comparison here.
your entire argument is fueled by strawmans, misinformation, and apparently some sort of irrational hate for adoption from third world countries. i'm guessing you're not much of a madonna fan, either.
i don't understand something, too: why you continue to post in this thread. it's quite clear that you are the only one with your ridiculous viewpoint, and with your weak reasoning you're not doing much to change anyone else's opinion here.
jorma said:
I did not imply that I favored a "no" or "yes" answer, I just wanted you to answer the question because that would inform me of everything I needed to know about your position on the matter.
BorkBork said:
What migration issue?
""The decision came down to residency requirement and the fact that the judge believes she was being well taken care of in the orphanage," said Zione Ntaba, a spokeswoman for the Malawi Justice Department."
That is the opinion of the judge involved in this case. I happen to agree with that opinion based on what I know about Malawi and what life is actually like there.
GQman2121 said:
Who said she was suffering? You assume far too much and that is where I take issue with the dissenting opinion in this thread.
I'm far too young to care about Madonna or her music so it's nothing personal against her.
Arthrus said:
What a load of crap. Hey you know what? You would be better off in Madonna's care as well!
cloudwalking said:
Hey you fucking retard, the article mentions her relatives!
"Days earlier, the charity Save the Children UK had urged the American singer to rethink the adoption and let the child be raised by her relatives."
The judge overseeing the case also happens to agree with me,
"The decision came down to residency requirement and the fact that the judge believes she was being well taken care of in the orphanage," said Zione Ntaba, a spokeswoman for the Malawi Justice Department."
so shut the fuck up please
cloudwalking
300chf ain't shit to me
B!TCH said:
if you actually read and comprehended any of my posts, you would realize that i never once referred to this specific adoption. the entire time i have been addressing adoption from third world countries in general and the benefits of it, not madonna's current adoption situation. i also addressed the people who were jumping on madonna by questioning her motivations for wanting to adopt, since no one here knows the woman personally.
so by quoting the article trying to make me look like "a fucking retard," as you put it, you actually accomplished nothing. the article does not expand on the family situation, it simply says that the child's mother died and a quote from a charity that says the child has relatives. if these relatives wanted to raise this child, where were they when the mother passed away, and why is the kid in an orphanage? there's no way you can claim anything with complete certainty. and i know what's coming next: "well you can't claim with complete certainty that the kid would be better off with madonna!" no, i can't. no one can. all i have been saying is that adoption to developed countries in these situations is usually a positive thing.
The judge overseeing the case also happens to agree with me,
"The decision came down to residency requirement and the fact that the judge believes she was being well taken care of in the orphanage," said Zione Ntaba, a spokeswoman for the Malawi Justice Department."
so shut the fuck up please
okay, so i guess one person agrees with you. what, do you want a medal? i never argued against this judge's decision, in fact i perfectly agree with the way things were handled in this case and that this situation actually went through the legal system.
the fact that you've completely missed my point, especially in my original post, tells me that you're too clouded by your own vendetta to do anything else but hammer away constantly at your own point and try to make everyone else in the thread look like fools. so i think i'm just about done posting here now.
You know, B!TCH, I would be better off under Madonna's care. The difference between me right now and me under her care would be millions of dollars if ever I need it (in case of an accident, some horrible disease, etc). Of course, I have a family and if I didn't, regardless of my financial situation, it'd be nice for somebody to adopt me. It's nice to have a family most of the time.
At this point I'm done. We could argue more but I don't see any point. I think you should stop posting here too.
EDIT: And to be clear, under the nation's penal code, the judge did the right thing. I just don't entirely agree with the system.
At this point I'm done. We could argue more but I don't see any point. I think you should stop posting here too.
EDIT: And to be clear, under the nation's penal code, the judge did the right thing. I just don't entirely agree with the system.
xs_mini_neo
Banned
B!TCH said:
1. If you were really born there you would not be joking about AIDS.
2. That pic of Madonna in here is photo shopped.
3. You have no business using "Le sigh."
GQman2121 said:
B!TCH !s ly!n'
B!TCH said:
Your point about there being no mass migration to western countries as an indication that everything is peachy keen in Malawi. It's not because many of the poor do not want to move to a better situation; it's that they do not have the means to do so. That applies to people in poverty everywhere.
You seem to be missing the point. I do not have an issue with the judge's ruling based on the residency requirement. Madonna should not be able to override their adoption process due to her fame. My point was that from all objective measures, a life with basic necessities guaranteed in a developed country will be better than one clinging to the bottom rung of a third world country. It can't get any clearer than that.
Agent Ghost
aka MAJIKdR46oN
Of course he would so would you and so would I. It's like winning the lottery, it doesn't matter where the kid lives. Clearly you've never lived in an orphanage. It doesn't even matter what country this is or that Madonna is filthy rich. ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN AN ORPHANAGE! How fucking hard is that to understand!?
Im with B!TCH. There's a gross misinterpretation on what happines really is. Everyone here seems to think its money and power?? Such a simple and unrealistic outlook. The kid would benefit from a good education, thats about the only thing i can see that Madonna might bring.
End up dieing of Aids, or end up suiciding from depression, overdosing or just living a lonely life all environments have their share of danger. But i dont see how her wealth would bring happiness.
End up dieing of Aids, or end up suiciding from depression, overdosing or just living a lonely life all environments have their share of danger. But i dont see how her wealth would bring happiness.
Prine said:
Imagine this child many years from now, slowly dying of AIDS, sleeping on some filthy bed with nothing but memories of pain and hunger and misery. Contrast that with an expensive apartment in New York with a degree hanging on the wall.
Yeah, there's a chance it wouldn't exactly turn out this way.
Do you think you have the right to take that chance for the child?
Gouty said:
Well that would mean something if you were worth something. Obviously its beyond you.
Chrono said:
Take what away? This fantasy in your head? Your reacting to something that isnt even happening.
Education is key i said this earlier. This kid might make it out of there graduate in a top school and make it back to help her country, thats just as plausible as her going all the way under Madonna. I dont see how wealth will bring her happiness. Its a delusion that it would.
iamcool388
Member
The Frankman
Banned
For all the people that seem to care this girl does not be adopted probably won't give a damn when the girl turns 18 and has to leave the orphanage and fend on her own with no help. All these "people" just do not want to see Madonna adopt the girl and that's it, these same people do not give one crap about this girl's well being, they won't help her or send her money, food, anything at all. Heck a year from now the girl could died and people like B!tch will not even care. All these organizations, the judge, whomever have an agenda to stop this girl from being adopted will never care again about this girl's whole life, so freaking shameful. Orphanage isn't the best place for any kid in any part of this world, people against the adoption probably never in their lives had to live their childhood alone in an orphanage.
WickedAngel
Banned
Prine said:
Come on now. That is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.
No one in their right mind can dispute that the child would have a better chance at comfort and happiness if adopted by a millionaire, ceteris paribus. She would have access to a better education system, better health care, and a chance to experience the world and cultures that she likely would have never seen otherwise.
Can anyone guarantee that her life would be better with Madonna? No; that's life. The child's plane could crash on the way over. The vehicle they're riding back to her home in could be struck by a drunk driver. There is no way to account for variables such as that so it's not even worth trying.
Sorry to bump this thread but I heard from the BBC world service story on this that the judge did this to make sure a precedent isn't set for child trafickers to just move in and easily adopt children like that.
I'd say that's a pretty good reason, though the people defending this still have no excuse.
I hope that girl has a happy life. :'(
I'd say that's a pretty good reason, though the people defending this still have no excuse.
I hope that girl has a happy life. :'(
MrSardonic
The nerdiest nerd of all the nerds in nerdland
Good
Way to talk total shit.
People against genetically modified organisms span the entire political spectrum and don't fall into your retarded little political categories.
The issue of altering organisms at the genetic level is extremely serious. It is fundamentally different to all other forms of human selection and exploitation of organisms and it will have irreversible and unpredictable consequences. The idea that it is to "save the poor" is a sick joke - it's driven by big money, fucking big money.
If you wanted to reduce poverty and food scarcity you could take steps to do so without covering the earth in genetically modified crop organisms.
Firstly, in the "west" we waste and throw away enormous amounts of food at all stages of the supply chain.
Secondly, we could shift away from excessive meat consumption and instantly free up a large amount of energy by consuming crops ourselves rather than feeding them to animals that will be sold as meat.
Thirdly, we could rebalance the global trade system so that "developing" countries invest in and grow crops for their own domestic food markets rather than being encouraged to do so for foreign export.
Fourthly, we could dispense with supermarkets being able to reject vast amounts of food grown in poor countries that do not meet completely irrelevant standards (such no irregular shapes in vegetable / fruit products). They are only in place because supermarkets think people wont buy ugly looking food, because supermarkets want to be able to attract people by appealing to the ideal of "perfect" good, and because consumers have both bought into and perpetuate this state of affairs.
The line that GM crops will save us is another pipe dream that puts science out there as our saviour. GM crops are being developed because of the financial gains that companies investing it in will reap. An easier solution is to deal with the socio-politico-economic factors that have greater exaggerated, localised, and produced food shortages. GM crops will be sold to poor farmers, who will become dependent on delivered grain supplies rather than a naturally sustainable crop, and the cycle of poverty is perpetuated and exacerbated.
It's similar to the scientific "solutions" for combating climate change: space mirrors, seeding oceans with iron, pumping gases underground. Rather than change our foolish ways we want to try and correct mistakes with even greater attempts to control and modify our environment. Never worked before, won't work now.
Chrono said:
Way to talk total shit.
People against genetically modified organisms span the entire political spectrum and don't fall into your retarded little political categories.
The issue of altering organisms at the genetic level is extremely serious. It is fundamentally different to all other forms of human selection and exploitation of organisms and it will have irreversible and unpredictable consequences. The idea that it is to "save the poor" is a sick joke - it's driven by big money, fucking big money.
If you wanted to reduce poverty and food scarcity you could take steps to do so without covering the earth in genetically modified crop organisms.
Firstly, in the "west" we waste and throw away enormous amounts of food at all stages of the supply chain.
Secondly, we could shift away from excessive meat consumption and instantly free up a large amount of energy by consuming crops ourselves rather than feeding them to animals that will be sold as meat.
Thirdly, we could rebalance the global trade system so that "developing" countries invest in and grow crops for their own domestic food markets rather than being encouraged to do so for foreign export.
Fourthly, we could dispense with supermarkets being able to reject vast amounts of food grown in poor countries that do not meet completely irrelevant standards (such no irregular shapes in vegetable / fruit products). They are only in place because supermarkets think people wont buy ugly looking food, because supermarkets want to be able to attract people by appealing to the ideal of "perfect" good, and because consumers have both bought into and perpetuate this state of affairs.
The line that GM crops will save us is another pipe dream that puts science out there as our saviour. GM crops are being developed because of the financial gains that companies investing it in will reap. An easier solution is to deal with the socio-politico-economic factors that have greater exaggerated, localised, and produced food shortages. GM crops will be sold to poor farmers, who will become dependent on delivered grain supplies rather than a naturally sustainable crop, and the cycle of poverty is perpetuated and exacerbated.
It's similar to the scientific "solutions" for combating climate change: space mirrors, seeding oceans with iron, pumping gases underground. Rather than change our foolish ways we want to try and correct mistakes with even greater attempts to control and modify our environment. Never worked before, won't work now.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
MrSardonic said:
:lol
Sorry, I'm not going to change my lifestyle and nor will the majority of people. And yes, I won't have to thanks to technology.
Genetic engineering allows crops to grow in harsher conditions, use less resources, and feed many more people. This is undeniable. If some company is making money, so fucking what. Good for them.
I'd respond to the rest of your post but just reading it is headache-inducing.
xs_mini_neo
Banned
Chrono said:
And the judge chooses Madonna of all people to set the example with? Ha. Because she's such a well known child trafficker, amirite? Why don't these so-called liberal activists try adopting these kids themselves if they don't want evil celebs from other countries to do it? They're liberal, so they are most likely poor. They would know how to raise a fellow poor person.
Souldriver
Member
Yeah you'd just have to walk 1,000 miles to the ocean, make rafts from tree limbs, and float 8,000 miles to America, eating delicious and plentiful sea turtles during your voyage.smurfx said:
Not to turn this thread into a GM food one, but this article I found linked here really shuts down this OMG GM FOOD = CORPORATE TYRANNY stupidity.
China is investing heavily in GM technologies, and they're doing it because they need to.
Technology is what prevented mass starvation last century, and it will do it again, or at least help tremendously, this century. Here's a nice TED talk that's about energy but partly goes over this:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/juan_enriquez_wants_to_grow_energy.html
China is investing heavily in GM technologies, and they're doing it because they need to.
Technology is what prevented mass starvation last century, and it will do it again, or at least help tremendously, this century. Here's a nice TED talk that's about energy but partly goes over this:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/juan_enriquez_wants_to_grow_energy.html
Malawi approves Madonna's 2nd adoption bid
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hXVf1Dez3uKIDscVWBPhyHkZ1f4QD98P36C80
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hXVf1Dez3uKIDscVWBPhyHkZ1f4QD98P36C80
- Status