Good point
but the kid doesn't even seem fazed by his loss. The point I was making is that he was allowed to blow money on crap rather than saving it. Personally, if I had a kid that age and he came into some money like that I wouldn't even tell him/her, I'd save it in a trust fund or something for when he/she is older and more likely to need it, especially with todays current crisis. And for the record, he acted exactly as he does now when his father was alive. No difference whatsoever.
(Stephen5555 is posting on, Thu 9 Oct 2008, 14:56, 1 reply)

But
if this kid isn't yet at school, as you seem to imply, that puts him at around about 3 or 4. How do you think 3 or 4 years olds normally act? They don't think about the future, they don't even think about going to toilet sometimes.

Maybe the surviving mother shouldn't have given him money to piss away, but that's not the kids fault. And I daresay she is trying to take the kids mind off the fact that he will never see his father again, which will be traumatic to a certain extent even if you can't see it. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, but I can understand it.
( Bazongaloid, Thu 9 Oct 2008, 15:01, closed)

I'd agree, with the caveat that I have no idea about kids. Losing his father at age four has got to be traumatic, and maybe young kids sometimes react to that trauma by becoming little brats. It's not as if they're mature enough to know how to cope with it properly.
(Musuko, Thu 9 Oct 2008, 16:41, closed)