Boy Forced to Live in Forest with Father for 5 Years Found in Germany

[Kasz216]

sapphi_snake said:

Kasz216 said:

A) Says who?  The only reason he left the forrest was the death of his father which was likely quite sudden.   Kid was 17.  If he wanted to not live in the forest he eaisly could of just left and found his way back to society.  Like you know... he did after his father died.

Also... no that isn't a sign that it's definitaly bogus.  Soap dates back to Ancient Babylon.  Someone well trained enough could eaisly make their own soap, live in a tent and wash their own clothes and appear just as clean as someone living in regular society.

A2)  Somwhat hippes, but not really since hippes don't reject most technology.  Hippies just care more about respected the land.  With Isolationists, it's more "Modern technology is a corruption of evolution, makes you weak and is unreliable by coddling us and making us unable to deal with real problems without it... or sometimes even with it."

B)  Then prove it... so far your proof is "Illeterates can't get jobs."  Except, they can... you have no proof he was an illerate and if he was at 12... chances are school wasn't doing him any good anyway.... oh yeah and THEY WEREN'T PLANNING TO LIVE IN MODERN SOCIETY.

B2) Again with the appeal to authority.... I guess when people ruled that "black people weren't fit to vote" that was perfectly ok then?  What makes respecting this man's desire any different then a specific ethnic groups desires to do the same?  I'm not talking about "Anyone should be able to do what they like."   I'm asking why someone is restricted from doing something with no proveable harm, that other groups of people do get to do, based apparently soley on there being more then two of them.

You've yet to prove any actual damage done to the kid while living in the forest, largely because you don't even know what it was like living in the forest... and considering the above thing about how clean he was... you probably don't even think he lived in the forest at all.

 

If we're going to do deductive jump to conclusions reasoning... we now have only two cases.

A) The Boy, who was perfectly clean, was either making this up... or

B) The Boy, after his father died, buried him in a shallow grave, and walked and survived all the way to Berlin, while keeping himself as clean as an ordinary person, with no signs of abuse or malnutrition.

Possibly all the way from Czechlsovakia if you believe the German police who think he likely came from Czech Republic via the Bavarian National Forest... and up to a year ago since the police are asking for info on any bodies found in the woods for the last year.

Seems like his father was teaching him SOMETHING.

 

Do you think he really has less knowledge then your average 15 year old? 

 

Hell, do you even know what the penatly is for holding your kid out of school in Germany or Czech? 

As far as I can tell... custody can't be removed for it.

I think you mixed up what points you were answering, because they don't add up.

A. Or he didn't let the kid leave. You know, crazy unstable people are capable of forcing poor impressionable children to do what they want.

B. Education wasn't doing him any good?

B2. Well fine, let's just let parents beat their kids to death. And what's thie 'two of them' you talk about? Do you have any proof the son wanted to live in a forest? Considering that the first thing he did after his father died was to go back to civilization, it's pretty clear he didn't wanna spend his life in forest.

And I repeat, is the fact that he has memory problems not an indicator that he's suffered some form of abuse abuse?

 

There's also a third possibility: the old man died (or the boy killed him), the boy was happy that he was finally free and got as fast as he could back to scoiety.

And I'm quite sure the average 15-year-old does have more knowledge than him.

Oh, and when a parent is mentally unstable, that is grounds for losing custody.

 

A)  He stopped him from leaving.... how exactly?  He's one person.  One person tends to need to sleep, and the father couldn't spend eternity watching him, outside the fact that you know, the boy was clearly trained how to survive based on his condition.

B)  Not if he wasn't living in a modern society.  Aside from which "Taking away something that helps your kid" isn't child abuse.   Considering though that "his father taught him how to read".  Doesn't sound like it was doing him any good.

B2)  You've yet to show any abuse.  Do you have any proof he DIDN'T want to?  Looking at the post below, it looks like he wants to go back now.

If you actually paid attention to the story you were making a snap judgement on, you'd note the fact that the Father said "If anything happens to me and there is an emergency, go North and get help."

I'd guess that's why he went north to get help.  Who knows why the dad told him that, or what the dad planned on doing in the woods, or if he planned to get others to go with him or not.  Noone knows.

To suggest he should lose his kid just because he wanted to live in the woods with his son is ridiculious.

C) His Amneisa is about the time before he was in the woods.  So.... no... no it doesn't. 

If anything, it suggests that the death of his mother is what caused his memory loss.  In such cases it's even possible to lose reading and writing skills.  Hence MAYBE why his father had to teach a 13 year old to read, who knows though.

D) Lets put the average 15 year old in the woods, and see how clean they come out... if they come out of the woods at all.  Considering how many adults aren't "Smarter then a 5th grader" i think you overestimate how much knowledge is retained by the average person.

E) You have no proof he went insane.  Again you took "Went into the woods after his wife died" as "He went crazy and took his child into the woods."   How do you know that he didn't always want to do that, but his wife didn't, and after she died, he thought it'd be a good way for the family to heal.

You don't because your quite literally pulling stuff out of your ass to fit your worst case scenario sitaution.

I don't know the situation either, the difference is... I'm not trying to judge someone or instantly take away their children assuming that ANYONE that wants to live in the woods away from technology is some insane person who should be locked away.   (Even though, I personally find such an idea crazy, cause technology rules.)