Florida Man Charged With Suffocating Son So He Could Keep Playing Xbox

[jetriot]

Florida Man is turning out to be one of the absolute worst supervillains in history.

On topic, it's apparent to me, and many who probably heard the news about him having a child that this man should have never had children in the first place. A parent who isn't willing to give up any and all of their time to be a parent doesn't deserve to be one because children require your full, uninterrupted attention up to a certain age.

This is why I'm of the mind that a system of parent licensing needs to be enacted, with stiff punishments of those who don't get them. People need licenses for everything nowadays. License to drive, fly, build on their property, open a business, buy guns (lolnoNRA) and work within certain fields. These licenses prove a person understands exactly what to do, but more importantly exactly what they're getting into. Having this system for bringing another life into thie world ensures you'll have less fuckups and more responsible parenting from people who might otherwise not be ready or may not understand what "parenting" may entail in their lives. Raising a child is a million times more difficult than something else like operating a motor vehicle.

Plus it'd drive down birth rates for sure, which would be a plus. This planet already has too many fucking people.

Sounds like Hitler's dream.

 

[Nathan Josephs]

florida says it all. there all crazy in florida.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Florida Man is the hero we deserve, just not the one we need right now.

You know what disgusts me?
People in this forum so far are more concerned about how the public will use this to further villify video games instead of weeping for the dead baby.
What the hell, Escapist forum users?
You're acting like the NRA members who bought up as many guns as they could after the Sandy Hook shooting because they were afraid that the government would crack down on guns.
Shame on you, this isn't about video games, it's about people! I'm disgusted to be a gamer right now.
GET> YOUR. PRIORITES STRAIGHT!!!

And how exactly are our priorities not straight? Did any of us know this kid? No. So what do you expect us to do, cry ourselves to sleep every night over the fact that a child died? Kids die pretty much every moment of every day in the world, many from even worse things, and yet people move on with their lives. Perceptions of video games affect gamers, a dead child that none of us knew doesn't, so I'd say our priorities are pretty straight in that we care about the thing that has a potential to actually affect our lives.

 

[Vareoth]

This is why I'm of the mind that a system of parent licensing needs to be enacted, with stiff punishments of those who don't get them. People need licenses for everything nowadays. License to drive, fly, build on their property, open a business, buy guns (lolnoNRA) and work within certain fields. These licenses prove a person understands exactly what to do, but more importantly exactly what they're getting into. Having this system for bringing another life into thie world ensures you'll have less fuckups and more responsible parenting from people who might otherwise not be ready or may not understand what "parenting" may entail in their lives. Raising a child is a million times more difficult than something else like operating a motor vehicle.

Plus it'd drive down birth rates for sure, which would be a plus. This planet already has too many fucking people.

Restricting something that is so inherently a part of basic human biology is something that should never be propagated or enforced in my opinion. And certainly not because of the actions of a relatively insignificant part of the general population. Even though it will probably solve some problems, I somehow feel very uneasy with the idea itself.

Also, overpopulation isn't the most pressing problem. The real issue here is the enormous waste of resources, mostly by the western world. Proper resource allocation and division together with finding a more sustainable energy source than oil/gas/coal is key (economic costs be damned). Although we both know that isn't likely to happen.

 

[Arakasi]

You know what disgusts me?
People in this forum so far are more concerned about how the public will use this to further villify video games instead of weeping for the dead baby.

It was a baby, barely a person. Besides, we hear about deaths over the internet constantly, if we weeped for every one we'd never stop weeping.

What the hell, Escapist forum users?
You're acting like the NRA members who bought up as many guns as they could after the Sandy Hook shooting because they were afraid that the government would crack down on guns.

That's perfectly understandable from their position. It'd be like if you were afraid the government were going to take away your bananas for an illegitimate reason, you'd be perfectly justified in buying as many bananas as possible.

Shame on you, this isn't about video games, it's about people! I'm disgusted to be a gamer right now.
GET> YOUR. PRIORITES STRAIGHT!!!

Yes it's about people, but also how they will react. Stop expecting people to be so emotional that they can't even talk about an issue.

 

[persephone]

Well clearly something was very wrong with this guy, and it couldn't have been video games. When someone's addicted to a video game, it's not the game that's the problem -- it's the void/problem in that person's life they're trying to use the game to fill. Take the game away and they'll just try to fill up that void with something else; the article does mention the guy watched television for a few hours, after all.

I hope the mom and daughter will turn out okay. The mother's gonna need a hell of a lot of counseling, that's for sure.

It was a baby, barely a person. Besides, we hear about deaths over the internet constantly, if we weeped for every one we'd never stop weeping.

Have you ever met a baby? Babies have distinct personalities even from in the womb (my mom could tell the day my twin and I switched sides before we were born). And they certainly have distinct personalities well before they can talk or move on their own. A friend of mine became a father a few years back and was astonished at how fully developed his newborn daughter's personality already was from day one.

I do agree, though, that we can't weep for every death we hear about over the internet -- there's just too many. But saying a baby's "barely a person" hardly helps matters, especially when it's just not true.

This is why I'm of the mind that a system of parent licensing needs to be enacted, with stiff punishments of those who don't get them. People need licenses for everything nowadays. License to drive, fly, build on their property, open a business, buy guns (lolnoNRA) and work within certain fields. These licenses prove a person understands exactly what to do, but more importantly exactly what they're getting into. Having this system for bringing another life into thie world ensures you'll have less fuckups and more responsible parenting from people who might otherwise not be ready or may not understand what "parenting" may entail in their lives. Raising a child is a million times more difficult than something else like operating a motor vehicle.

Plus it'd drive down birth rates for sure, which would be a plus. This planet already has too many fucking people.

The problem with such ideas is that while they look great on paper, historically they lead to things like eugenics, forced sterilizations, and forced abortions (including late-term abortions). Plus fining people for having kids can then make it difficult for them to scrape together the money to take care of those kids! (At least I assume that's what you mean by "stiff punishments".) While it is just weird that it doesn't take a license, it's really hard to properly license parenthood without it spiraling out of control morally. Otherwise, I'd be all for it; I've seen too many horrible parents.

 

[Arakasi]

It was a baby, barely a person. Besides, we hear about deaths over the internet constantly, if we weeped for every one we'd never stop weeping.

Have you ever met a baby? Babies have distinct personalities even from in the womb (my mom could tell the day my twin and I switched sides before we were born). And they certainly have distinct personalities well before they can talk or move on their own. A friend of mine became a father a few years back and was astonished at how fully developed his newborn daughter's personality already was from day one.

Personality is distinct from person-hood. Dogs can have personalities, lizards can, hell even AI can. All 'personality' describes is basically 'behavioral variation within the norm'.

 

[SilverLion]

O.K I admit that saying we should "weep" for the baby was a bit melodramatic (thank you Vareoth) what I was meaning is that we should hold the baby in our hearts today instead of freaking out about our precious video games. And as for Arasaki saying it was barely a person and that we shouldn't care because we constantly hear about dead people, FUCK YOU! Just because we hear about people dying all the time doesn't make it any less tragic, and the fact that it was a baby that could have grown up to be anything like a doctor, lumberjack or even a video game designer with its own triumphs, failures and personality makes it even more tragic than someone like me dying, because I've lived my life at least a little bit. And also saying that we should be more concerned about our video games than the baby because our games affect us directly and we didn't know the baby: What's more important, some electronics that if it got broken we could just pay 60 more dollars for or a human life, no matter how little we know it? I personally think everyone should stop being so selfish about their preferred medium of entertainment and put the attention where it is needed; giving just a few seconds thought to a human life, no matter how small, taken before their time.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

To be fair, this is the kind of person who names their son Daymeon.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

You know what disgusts me?
People in this forum so far are more concerned about how the public will use this to further villify video games instead of weeping for the dead baby.
What the hell, Escapist forum users?
You're acting like the NRA members who bought up as many guns as they could after the Sandy Hook shooting because they were afraid that the government would crack down on guns.
Shame on you, this isn't about video games, it's about people! I'm disgusted to be a gamer right now.
GET. YOUR. PRIORITES STRAIGHT!!!

Well, should we all be saying "Oh, that's so horrible. I shall pray for the baby"? That stuff is equally worthless, if not more so. It's not like anyone on some internet forum even needs to use honeyed words for this because it won't fall on any ears. I doubt the girlfriend will be searching video game forums right now, after all, so what we see as a priority to discuss is certainly not going to offend her or those close to her - the only ones such words would actually be of any use to. So on a forum like this, discussion may as well be about what's relevant: video game discussion, or cheap humour.

There 'ya go.

 

[Euryalus]

It was a baby, barely a person. Besides, we hear about deaths over the internet constantly, if we weeped for every one we'd never stop weeping.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

What about the ability to make moral judgements according to an empathetic sense faculty?

What makes something a person?

And what does "barely a person" mean anyway? You either are or you aren't.

I agree with you on not weeping though.

It's ok to be upset by things, but there's no sense in letting it keep you from reacting rationally.

None of us can change what happened to this kid.

You know what disgusts me?
People in this forum so far are more concerned about how the public will use this to further villify video games instead of weeping for the dead baby.
What the hell, Escapist forum users?
You're acting like the NRA members who bought up as many guns as they could after the Sandy Hook shooting because they were afraid that the government would crack down on guns.
Shame on you, this isn't about video games, it's about people! I'm disgusted to be a gamer right now.
GET. YOUR. PRIORITES STRAIGHT!!!

Why should anyone waste their time weeping? It's ok to feel. It's good to feel, but when you let your emotions do anything other than feel you start to make irrational decisions.

I'm sad that this kid was given the short end of the stick, and My reaction upon reading it was a pretty visceral "That's horrible" feeling, but what you seem to be saying is that we should ignore the implications of how the media might spin this given past behavior and focus entirely on how sad it was?

Why? I don't need to think about the sadness of it. That will either be felt or it won't.

And if we do focus entirely on how tragic it was, what will that do? We can't change what happened.

 

[RaikuFA]

I don't understand how a couple can have one child in state social services but still have the other child under their care. Surely, if they've been identified as unfit parents and had one young child taken out of their custody, the other shouldn't just get left behind.

It doesn't say why their 3 month old is in state care though.

She was taken into custody after the arrest.

This article [http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2014/4/17/homosassa_man_arrest.html] had better breaking-news details as it covers the area in which Wygant lives, which looks nice enough but getting to that area is an extremely creepy drive. My advice to anyone visiting Florida is to avoid the west coast area north of Tampa. It's a long, dark stretch of highway through barely populated swampland.

For anyone interested, here are some of Wygant's previous arrest mugshots [http://www.shastamugshots.com/search/?q=wygant&s=Search] in California, along with the associated charges. It seems strange how the Los Angeles Times knew some of the exact games [http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-florida-murder-video-game-20140418,0,1234804.story#axzz2zM6Cch8a] Wygant owned. And then they go on to incorrectly describe them as "role-playing". It's too bad news outlets are fixating on the video games aspect of this tragedy, because it's detracting from what this situation is: a tragedy. Anyone that kills a baby deserves to get flung into the sun.

1: Thank you for claifying that. I was a bit confused too.

2: I agree 100% with everything else.

 

[persephone]

It was a baby, barely a person. Besides, we hear about deaths over the internet constantly, if we weeped for every one we'd never stop weeping.

Have you ever met a baby? Babies have distinct personalities even from in the womb (my mom could tell the day my twin and I switched sides before we were born). And they certainly have distinct personalities well before they can talk or move on their own. A friend of mine became a father a few years back and was astonished at how fully developed his newborn daughter's personality already was from day one.

Personality is distinct from person-hood. Dogs can have personalities, lizards can, hell even AI can. All 'personality' describes is basically 'behavioral variation within the norm'.

That is true; my cats both have distinct personalities, for instance. But a baby is still a person. T0oad of Truth makes good points, there.

 

[Basement Cat]

You know what disgusts me?
People in this forum so far are more concerned about how the public will use this to further villify video games instead of weeping for the dead baby.
What the hell, Escapist forum users?
You're acting like the NRA members who bought up as many guns as they could after the Sandy Hook shooting because they were afraid that the government would crack down on guns.
Shame on you, this isn't about video games, it's about people! I'm disgusted to be a gamer right now.
GET. YOUR. PRIORITES STRAIGHT!!!

I was tipsy when I created this thread which lead to me clipping out a garbled statement of sympathy for the child. That has been attended to.

Still, I suggest you calm down a bit. Whenever folks here tell others what they should or should not do many if not most take the opposing side out of annoyance or spite.

 

[Arakasi]

That is true; my cats both have distinct personalities, for instance. But a baby is still a person. T0oad of Truth makes good points, there.

And I shall tackle them.

It was a baby, barely a person. Besides, we hear about deaths over the internet constantly, if we weeped for every one we'd never stop weeping.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

What about the ability to make moral judgements according to an empathetic sense faculty?

Nope, people with anti-social personality disorder (aka psychopaths) don't necessarily have that and they're still counted as people.

What makes something a person?

That is a difficult philosophical question. Peter Singer tackles it fairly well, and basically sums up that at some arbitrary (yet probably non-baby) point, we consider a child a person. But of course, it is entirely arbitrary. I really wouldn't consider a baby a person until it began stringing together words in a manner that is not simply mimicry.

And what does "barely a person" mean anyway? You either are or you aren't.

One could contain some features of being a person and not others. Obviously you can look at it in a black and white way, but that wasn't my intent.

 

[persephone]

Nope, people with anti-social personality disorder (aka psychopaths) don't necessarily have that and they're still counted as people.

What makes something a person?

That is a difficult philosophical question. Peter Singer tackles it fairly well, and basically sums up that at some arbitrary (yet probably non-baby) point, we consider a child a person. But of course, it is entirely arbitrary. I really wouldn't consider a baby a person until it began stringing together words in a manner that is not simply mimicry.

And what does "barely a person" mean anyway? You either are or you aren't.

One could contain some features of being a person and not others. Obviously you can look at it in a black and white way, but that wasn't my intent.

What about children who are mute, or blind and deaf? They could easily reach a certain age and not be able to string words together.

It's true that some people are (terrifyingly) born without the ability to make moral judgments, but I would posit that that doesn't disqualify them from personhood. After all, these people are able to master language, understand abstract and metaphorical concepts, and so forth. And they are capable of coming to understanding the abstract concepts of morality, even if they don't agree with them or feel them in their hearts.

What about an adult who, with a previously fully functional brain, intellect, etc., suffered a stroke or head trauma and lost the ability to speak or understand language? Are they still a person?

If there are degrees of personhood, what does that mean?

If personhood is more black and white, and you either are or you aren't, can you be a person and yet not have one or more qualities associated with personhood?

If this is the Peter Singer you're talking about:

http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.independentliving.org/docs5/singer.html

Then I can see where you're coming from, though I must disagree with it. By his definition of personhood, people suffering from some forms of Alzheimer or dementia aren't persons. I don't agree with that, or with the idea that babies aren't persons until they reach a certain level of self-awareness. Also by his reasoning, my parents would have been justified in killing me after I was born; I required six weeks in the NICU, barely lived, and am now living with permanent disability. But I don't regret having been alive, nor being alive now, and I certainly don't think my parents have regretted having me for one moment.

 

[Arakasi]

Nope, people with anti-social personality disorder (aka psychopaths) don't necessarily have that and they're still counted as people.

What makes something a person?

That is a difficult philosophical question. Peter Singer tackles it fairly well, and basically sums up that at some arbitrary (yet probably non-baby) point, we consider a child a person. But of course, it is entirely arbitrary. I really wouldn't consider a baby a person until it began stringing together words in a manner that is not simply mimicry.

And what does "barely a person" mean anyway? You either are or you aren't.

One could contain some features of being a person and not others. Obviously you can look at it in a black and white way, but that wasn't my intent.

What about children who are mute, or blind and deaf? They could easily reach a certain age and not be able to string words together.

Sorry, I phrased that poorly, maybe instead the 'neural capability' to do such. Actually, no, strike that, this is why I don't like dealing in moral arguments that involve arbitrary terms. Society needs to pick an arbitrary age (or some other objective criteria) and decide that is the 'age of personhood'.

It's true that some people are (terrifyingly) born without the ability to make moral judgments, but I would posit that that doesn't disqualify them from personhood. After all, these people are able to master language, understand abstract and metaphorical concepts, and so forth. And they are capable of coming to understanding the abstract concepts of morality, even if they don't agree with them or feel them in their hearts.

Yeah, that's what I was saying, in more or less words.

What about an adult who, with a previously fully functional brain, intellect, etc., suffered a stroke or head trauma and lost the ability to speak or understand language? Are they still a person?

Again, see my above post. Though at some point (and it is probably the point at which the mind is no longer capable of making rational decisions) I'd say it'd be apt to say someone could no longer be a person.

If there are degrees of personhood, what does that mean?

If personhood is more black and white, and you either are or you aren't, can you be a person and yet not have one or more qualities associated with personhood?

There's a distinction between association and necessary criteria. One could be by definition a person (by whatever criteria is proposed) but not have one of the things commonly associated with such, like empathy for example.

If this is the Peter Singer you're talking about:

http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.independentliving.org/docs5/singer.html

Then I can see where you're coming from, though I must disagree with it.

Yes it is, though I don't necessarily agree with his perspective either, he just makes a lot of good points about other arguments.

Also by his reasoning, my parents would have been justified in killing me after I was born; I required six weeks in the NICU, barely lived, and am now living with permanent disability.

Yes, but that's not necessarily a point against his argument.

But I don't regret having been alive, nor being alive now, and I certainly don't think my parents have regretted having me for one moment.

It's not about regret, it's about whether or not it was 'morally correct' to be able to do it, which he presumably thinks it is.

 

[game-lover]

I've been seeing this on Facebook.

May the powers that be show him all the mercy he showed his child.

Basically, I hope he dies something fierce after suffering something fierce first. That is all.

 

[VondeVon]

This is why I'm of the mind that a system of parent licensing needs to be enacted, with stiff punishments of those who don't get them. People need licenses for everything nowadays. License to drive, fly, build on their property, open a business, buy guns (lolnoNRA) and work within certain fields. These licenses prove a person understands exactly what to do, but more importantly exactly what they're getting into. Having this system for bringing another life into thie world ensures you'll have less fuckups and more responsible parenting from people who might otherwise not be ready or may not understand what "parenting" may entail in their lives. Raising a child is a million times more difficult than something else like operating a motor vehicle.

Plus it'd drive down birth rates for sure, which would be a plus. This planet already has too many fucking people.

Restricting something that is so inherently a part of basic human biology is something that should never be propagated or enforced in my opinion. And certainly not because of the actions of a relatively insignificant part of the general population. Even though it will probably solve some problems, I somehow feel very uneasy with the idea itself.

Also, overpopulation isn't the most pressing problem. The real issue here is the enormous waste of resources, mostly by the western world. Proper resource allocation and division together with finding a more sustainable energy source than oil/gas/coal is key (economic costs be damned). Although we both know that isn't likely to happen.

I'm a firm supporter of licensing parenthood. People do have the right to propagate their species and satisfy the psychological urge to leave something of themselves behind but people should ALSO have the right to not be raised and shaped by violent/neglectful people.