Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So a quick thought on this. Affluenze is supposed to be....

"the defense argued that Couch shouldn’t be held as responsible as he might be because his parents were so permissive in their style of child rearing that Couch did not experience socially appropriate consequences for his socially inappropriate behavior."

Does that mean we can have Non-Affluenze from poverty or bad parenting styles leading to the same set of circumstances where their is a permissive style? Therefore, could this same defense be used in other cases where "bad parenting" is to blame?

I just want to know how I can catch this "affluenza". I'm so sick of all this "brokeitis" that is going around.