Suspect beaten after showing porn to kids

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: shoRunner
your a real fscking moron...no really

Im sorry that both your neurons "think" my post may have been a bit "heigh fauleetin fur all y'all." You can go back to staring blankly at the wall while your nurse wipes drool from your chin now. Thanks for playing...

Well, actually, just for fun, can you address my concerns with respect to conclusions being made in the absence of info?

 

[sumrtym]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

It's one thing for a family to allow their children to view such magazines (I have nothing against it) but it's something entirely different for some piece of ****** jackass teenager to think he knows better than the parents of the kids.

Don't remember disagreeing there.....said I wasn't defending him.

I don't care if you, homercles337, or the jackass in the article think that this is a nation of prudes. It's not your damned business so stay the hell out of it.

Thanks for making my point. Nudity is so shameful, it justifies group beatings. Maybe somebody SHOULD teach your kids differently.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: sumrtym
Thanks for making my point. Nudity is so shameful, it justifies group beatings. Maybe somebody SHOULD teach your kids differently.

It has little to do with the actual content of the magazines. If he had shown them Stormfront.org newsletters it wouldn't make a difference. I'm saying that he's messing around with another man's kid and that he should mind his own business. If he wants to show kids porn he should find a wife willing to put up with his antics and make some himself.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: homercles337
How old were you when you "discovered" your first "nudie mag?" Now given this, hopefully fond thought, do you think it is wholistically unlikely that the children were curious and asked an older brother to "show them" a nudie mag? Dont worry HB, i dont expect much thought out of you on this matter. BTW, what is the liklihood that terraists will blow up your house in tejas?

Nowhere in the article did it mention that they asked to see the magazine (I mean seriously, wtf?) or that they were related (a double wtf?). What kind of seven year old asks random people "jessicaalba nudez plz" and what kind of older brother would show such things? Don't bitch about assumptions when you make ones like those. Don't see what Texas has to do with anything either, but I'm not surprised that you would bring it up being a P&N whore and all.

So, since the POS article didnt cover it means it doesnt exist or shouldnt be addressed? Jebus, man, honestly, do you really believe your nonsense? Im not making ANY assumptions, im simply stating that there are other POSSIBLE interpretations. Now, can answer my last Q. Wheen iz deem terraists guna bloow up ur huse?

 

[sumrtym]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: sumrtym
Thanks for making my point. Nudity is so shameful, it justifies group beatings. Maybe somebody SHOULD teach your kids differently.

It has little to do with the actual content of the magazines. If he had shown them Stormfront.org newsletters it wouldn't make a difference. I'm saying that he's messing around with another man's kid and that he should mind his own business. If he wants to show kids porn he should find a wife willing to put up with his antics and make some himself.

Quoted again just to show AGAIN that it justifies 15 people beating up a teenager. But again, you can't get past the nudity, and have lost rational thought...just like they did.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: homercles337
So, since the POS article didnt cover it means it doesnt exist or shouldnt be addressed? Jebus, man, honestly, do you really believe your nonsense? Im not making ANY assumptions, im simply stating that there are other POSSIBLE interpretations. Now, can answer my last Q. Wheen iz deem terraists guna bloow up ur huse?

Why should they cover your very unlikely suspicions? The newspaper would be laughed off for trying to find out whether or not the suspect was mature or not, the extent of nudity, and to see if maybe the seven year old enjoyed it and started fapping.

Alrady lynchd 3 o those terrist basterds 2day btw. Dem mothafcking mohameds needa keep ofa mah porch dammit!

Originally posted by: sumrtym
Quoted again just to show AGAIN that it justifies 15 people beating up a teenager. But again, you can't get past the nudity, and have lost rational thought...just like they did.

The beating was justified, yes. Not for nudity, but because some punk (who probably had no parents himself) thought that he knew best on what to do regarding other people's kids.

 

[sumrtym]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
The beating was justified, yes. Not for nudity, but because some punk (who probably had no parents himself) thought that he knew best on what to do regarding other people's kids.

I'm starting to get you now. You're the type who when their kid is behaving like a moron and someone gets on them to quit it, you jump 'em for getting on their angel and interfering with their parenting. It's all so clear.

Now, which do you think did more harm to the kids? A naked picture <GASP> or the sight of their parents and a gang of more than a dozen people beating the crap out of a kid?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: sumrtym
I'm starting to get you now. You're the type who when their kid is behaving like a moron and someone gets on them to quit it, you jump 'em for getting on their angel and interfering with their parenting. It's all so clear.

Now, which do you think did more harm to the kids? A naked picture <GASP> or the sight of their parents and a gang of more than a dozen people beating the crap out of a kid?

I hardly can see how you can draw a comparison between telling a spoiled brat to stop egging a house (for example) and showing them material that their parents would (and did) find offensive. Don't think that the violence is going to turn them into bloodthirsty savages either. Kids learn to fight without needing to learn by example. Hell, if there was one grade I got into the most fights in it was 2nd grade.

 

[sumrtym]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
Hell, if there was one grade I got into the most fights in it was 2nd grade.

Wait till you get to 4th.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: sumrtym
Wait till you get to 4th.

LOL, finally an insult that was actually funny. I'm serious though, 2nd graders can be little bastards. By 4th grade the bad kids mostly just stayed around each other and didn't project their violence around large groups of kids.

 

[sumrtym]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
By 4th grade the bad kids mostly just stayed around each other and didn't project their violence around large groups of kids.

That is, until they became parents and a teenager had a nudie magazine...

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: sumrtym
That is, until they became parents and a teenager had a nudie magazine...

Maybe you wouldn't care if your kid was shown pornography by a stranger, but that group of fifteen men did. Whether or not the children's precious God-given morals be destroyed or not, they were defending their children from what they thought to be immoral. I don't believe that a group of people aside from the parents should be able to choose what they deem appropriate or not.

 

[sumrtym]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Whether or not the children's precious God-given morals be destroyed or not, they were defending their children from what they thought to be immoral.

By 15 people jumping a teenager and beating him. Glad there weren't any chainsaws handy.

This is the attitude I've always found amazing, take one thing and do something even more outrageous as justification. Want a good example? WWII

Everyone shocked when America is attacked without warning. What was attacked though? A military base, which, ya gotta think that if you're going in the military, maybe you should think you might be attacked without warning sometime. America's response at the end of the war...drop two nuclear weapons. Not on military targets, but civilian cities. Without warning. Think about that one a little bit.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
they were defending their children from what they thought to be immoral.

what if they were wrong?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: sumrtym
By 15 people jumping a teenager and beating him. Glad there weren't any chainsaws handy.

This is the attitude I've always found amazing, take one thing and do something even more outrageous as justification. Want a good example? WWII

Everyone shocked when America is attacked without warning. What was attacked though? A military base, which, ya gotta think that if you're going in the military, maybe you should think you might be attacked without warning sometime. America's response at the end of the war...drop two nuclear weapons. Not on military targets, but civilian cities. Without warning. Think about that one a little bit.

Admittedly I called him a teenager earlier in this thread as well, but that doesn't really matter at all. There's little difference physically between twenty and thirty year olds. Not to say that had he been weaker that they shouldn't have been so hard on him.

WW2 is a completely different argument and I don't want to hijack the thread, but what should they have done instead? The US military already wasted time on fighting Nazi Germany (which effectively created the Soviet Union) and saving the other Europeans. Should we have fought an allout ground war? Don't forget that Fat Man and Little Boy weren't the only two devastating attacks on Japanese cities. The firebombing of Tokyo killed just as many.

Originally posted by: loki8481
what if they were wrong?

About it corrupting their children? Wouldn't make a difference, unless you support the government telling parents how to raise their children and what's right and wrong. Personally, I would never want anything like that as the cons of a few children turned into crazy fundies would be vastly outweighed by the chance of propaganda being distributed by this administration or others to follow.

 

[sumrtym]

loki8481, you miss the point obviously.

15 people beating up a teenager is obviously moral.

The story should have read the teenager was held for police, and the adults involved arrested on assault charges.

 

[sumrtym]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
The US military already wasted time on fighting Nazi Germany (which effectively created the Soviet Union) and saving the other Europeans. Should we have fought an allout ground war? Don't forget that Fat Man and Little Boy weren't the only two devastating attacks on Japanese cities. The firebombing of Tokyo killed just as many.

Again making my point. America still shocked at an attack on a military target and sees it as a day of infamy, yet then attacks civilian targets killing 100s of thousands. So tell me, what is the more shocking?

It's the same in this story. But I leave it to you to go on with your "justifications".

I swear, the self-proclaimed most moral religious people are anything but.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: sumrtym
Again making my point. America still shocked at an attack on a military target and sees it as a day of infamy, yet then attacks civilian targets killing 100s of thousands. So tell me, what is the more shocking?

It's the same in this story.

Uh, the USA didn't just launch nukes and bombs all over the place. There were many battles. How can you not know of Iwo Jima and Midway? The problem is that the Japanese people were fiercly patriotic and the fight would've dragged on much longer. Something around 300,000 civilians were killed and their government didn't even surrender at 200,000. Unless the war was to be dragged out much longer, we had to show them who's boss. So, I'd say that Pearl Harbor was more shocking. We had justification.

 

[sumrtym]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
Unless the war was to be dragged out much longer, we had to show them who's boss.

Spoken like every petty thug / mob boss / criminal on death row. I didn't say there wasn't battles, I said look how it started and how it ended.

But hey, you can justify any terrible act, no matter how unproportional or unjustified. Good for you.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: sumrtym
Spoken like every petty thug / mob boss / criminal on death row. I didn't say there wasn't battles, I said look how it started and how it ended.

But hey, you can justify any terrible act, no matter how unproportional or unjustified. Good for you.

So how else do we fight them? If you don't fight a war to dominate and win you end up with Vietnam.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: loki8481
what if they were wrong?

About it corrupting their children? Wouldn't make a difference, unless you support the government telling parents how to raise their children and what's right and wrong. Personally, I would never want anything like that as the cons of a few children turned into crazy fundies would be vastly outweighed by the chance of propaganda being distributed by this administration or others to follow.

no, I mean, what if he didn't do it? what if he was innocent? the 15 people had no proof beyond some accusations.

 

[sumrtym]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
So how else do we fight them? If you don't fight a war to dominate and win you end up with Vietnam.

So, the terrorists are justified as that's the only way they have to fight a war with hope of winning against us. Glad you said it and not me.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: loki8481
no, I mean, what if he didn't do it? what if he was innocent? the 15 people had no proof beyond some accusations.

Then obviously the fifteen people committed assault against an innocent and should be punished. I'm just arguing on the chance that it was true.

Originally posted by: sumrtym
So, the terrorists are justified as that's the only way they have to fight a war with hope of winning against us. Glad you said it and not me.

Eh, it's a little different as they would like to conquer this country. The USA during WW2 fought against a country that was trying to conquer them.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: loki8481
no, I mean, what if he didn't do it? what if he was innocent? the 15 people had no proof beyond some accusations.

Then obviously the fifteen people committed assault against an innocent and should be punished. I'm just arguing on the chance that it was true.

shouldn't rational human beings be expected to get evidence before beating the crap out of someone?

what's the difference between corrupting children by showing them dirty pictures and corrupting them by endorsing violence?

 

[sumrtym]

Originally posted by: loki8481
what's the difference between corrupting children by showing them dirty pictures and corrupting them by endorsing violence?

First, I might debate whether the picture was "dirty" or not. But that's besides the point.

Says if you got a problem with someone, get 14 friends to beat the crap out of him. If alone, just get a gun and use it.