When morons breed...

[skeptifem]

Nails

He's either trolling or dancing on the grave of the baby. Either way I think we have two options (1) stop entertaining the buffoon, or (2) go to Denmark and kick the daylights out of him.

Preference?

i dont mind trolls as long as they provide some excitement.

 

[Architect]

Would that be option (2) then?

 

[Z]

DeeDee, your original post was surely a jest, but since then you've been less than amusing. Frankly, if you ARE seriously arguing what you claim to be, then I can only assume that you suffer from a number of mental illnesses, in which case, continuing to engage you is potentially dangerous for you. On the other hand, if you are NOT seriously making these arguments, then you've gone from a simple clown to a morbid troll, in which case it is fruitless to continue to engage you. Either way, this will be the last response I make to you until I observe some improvement in your mental state and/or emotional maturity. If, on the other hand, you persist or - worse - devolve into more base behaviors, I shall have to place you on 'ignore'.

To the casual reader: the state of this situation is clear: there is NO excuse in this day and age for parents to fail to feed their child sufficient quantities and types of food to ensure the child's survival; failure to do so is manslaughter, and deserves no less than extended time in prison. Failure to feed a child is a deliberate choice, and shows malice. It's not that this infant was only fed soy milk and apple juice, it's that it wasn't even given enough of that to survive. This means, at best, the parents were engaged in willful ignorance and malicious neglect. Had the baby survived, some leniency would certainly be in order, though these parents should not have custody of children until such time as they had completed appropriate parenting classes. But the baby died, which makes them guilty of manslaughter, plain and simple.

We don't excuse drunk drivers when they kill. We don't excuse parents who allow their children to die in closed cars in summertime heat. And we don't excuse parents who starve their children to death. Plain and simple.

 

[DanishDynamite]

they took a lifetime away from their kid, it died in an extremely painful manner. I can see why they would get life. Starving to death is one of the worst ways to die and forced starvation is very much a form of torture.

Unbelievable.

People who are unattentive for a few moments might see their kid run into the street and be run over by a car.

Are they crushed? Yes. Should they be punished? No. Should someone ignorant of the right foods to give their own child so that it dies, be crushed? Yes Should they be thrown in prison for life? No.

a mistake that ends in dead baby is pretty friggin serious. and making that particular mistake long enough to cause death by starvation isnt like a regular mistake. its not an 'oops' that happens in an instant, they made a mistake every single day of the child's life. i posted that picture of a 3 and a half pound baby for a reason. to show that you would seriously have to not care in order to refuse to get any medical attention for an infant that was born/stayed that small for that long. I think you would have to be pretty careless not to seek any information about taking care of a baby before having one.

I think you would have to be pretty cold hearted not to forgive simple ignorance when there was no malice. When the opposite was in fact the case.

 

[Architect]

Unbelievable.
People who are unattentive for a few moments might see their kid run into the street and be run over by a car.

I see. So in your world, letting a child run free for a brief moment is comparable to starving them for something like 6 weeks until they die.

You also seem to think that it is acceptable for parents to kill their children, whether by accident or design. What an unusual perspective, and one which I suspect you would find hard to find sympathy for in any forum where you had to actually ineract with real people.

Z is right. You either have serious mental health problems, or are trolling - all over the poor child's grave. Really, it's time that would be much better spent learning better English. Tosk.

 

[Z]

No, that was the other case, in which their were older children. Went back and read the relevant post. I don't see any indication for this case that this couple had other children.

First child or not, though, there's no excuse for starving a baby to death.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Nails

He's either trolling or dancing on the grave of the baby. Either way I think we have two options (1) stop entertaining the buffoon, or (2) go to Denmark and kick the daylights out of him.

Preference?

Or, perhaps, just perhaps, I'm presenting the view that I hold.

And perhaps, just perhaps, I stand to gain nothing at all if my view that the parents don't deserve a lifetime in jail just because they were ignorant, is at least made an acceptable view.

Perhaps, I find any other view despicaple. Totally and completely despicaple.

 

[skeptifem]

Unbelievable.

People who are unattentive for a few moments might see their kid run into the street and be run over by a car.

that would be a momentary lapse of judgement. Like if the vegan parents forgot to feed their baby once. But thats not what happened. it took weeks of neglect for that baby to die.

DD, if someone did not watch their kids for 6 weeks straight and something bad happened as a result, do you think they deserve punishment?

I think you would have to be pretty cold hearted not to forgive simple ignorance when there was no malice.

according to you, I could go out and murder as many people as I wanted, and simply claim at trial that I didnt know it was illegal to murder them, and you would think its ok for me to go free?

 

[DanishDynamite]

because i could do LITERALLY anything i wanted to and claim ignorance and not have to pay for the consequences of my actions.

I could kill anyone i wanted and claim I didnt know it was illegal to murder people, and in your opinion i shouldnt have to go to jail?

Good grief.

Once again, we are not talking about these people being ignorant of the law, though they might have been.

We are talking about two parents being ignorant of the minimum requirements for a baby to grow. They faithfully fed their baby the "milk" and other foods they ate. The baby couldn't absorbe it.

This is reason enough to through away the key?

Jesus. H. Christ!

 

[Architect]

Or, perhaps, just perhaps, I'm presenting the view that I hold.

That is all you are doing; presenting a personal view. You have comprehensively failed to back it up with any reasoned argument, discussion of the merits (or otherwise) of the legal case, or indeed make a cogent case. It is clear that you have not looked into the case, and when challenged on your responses (such as they are) you instead demand that we provide evidence to disprove your unsubstantiated opinion.

I will stand by my accusation. You, sir, either have mental health problems or your trolling has passed the bounds of acceptability and is tap dancing on the grave of the child.

To suggest - no, make that "state" - there is a comparison with a temporarily unattended child running in to the road is to stretch any patience and credibility the reader might have had to the very extreme.

Tosk.

 

[g4macdad]

Nails

He's either trolling or dancing on the grave of the baby. Either way I think we have two options (1) stop entertaining the buffoon, or (2) go to Denmark and kick the daylights out of him.

Preference?

C'mon MODERATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get off your lazy [RULE8s]

MODERATOR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MODERATOR

 

[DanishDynamite]

The court convincted them of murder with malice. personally, I find this compelling evidence that the court believed malice was involved. But this may be because (1) I understand the basics of the legal system and (2) I understand English. In either case I appear to have the advantage of you.

The Court did whatever it had to do. Unless you have additional evidence, your musings have no interest.

But lets get back to the point you have deliberately ignored. I have asked you no less than 3 times to provide a detailed note of your position, be it philosophical or legal. And so far we only have some contradictory, glib remarks.

What more do you want?

I reckon you don't have an argument beyond "I think it was wrong". You've been unable to field any sort of cogent response. Now I know it's nearly 2am in Denmark now, and you have school tomorrow and everything, but is there any chance you might actually have the balls to state a proper case or are you just going to fanny around all night?

The argument "I think it is wrong" is a very strong argument. It is in fact, the basis of all law.

Dismissing it as less than that, is perhaps a bit hasty on your part.

 

[g4macdad]

DeeDee, your original post was surely a jest, but since then you've been less than amusing. Frankly, if you ARE seriously arguing what you claim to be, then I can only assume that you suffer from a number of mental illnesses, in which case, continuing to engage you is potentially dangerous for you. On the other hand, if you are NOT seriously making these arguments, then you've gone from a simple clown to a morbid troll, in which case it is fruitless to continue to engage you. Either way, this will be the last response I make to you until I observe some improvement in your mental state and/or emotional maturity. If, on the other hand, you persist or - worse - devolve into more base behaviors, I shall have to place you on 'ignore'.

To the casual reader: the state of this situation is clear: there is NO excuse in this day and age for parents to fail to feed their child sufficient quantities and types of food to ensure the child's survival; failure to do so is manslaughter, and deserves no less than extended time in prison. Failure to feed a child is a deliberate choice, and shows malice. It's not that this infant was only fed soy milk and apple juice, it's that it wasn't even given enough of that to survive. This means, at best, the parents were engaged in willful ignorance and malicious neglect. Had the baby survived, some leniency would certainly be in order, though these parents should not have custody of children until such time as they had completed appropriate parenting classes. But the baby died, which makes them guilty of manslaughter, plain and simple.

We don't excuse drunk drivers when they kill. We don't excuse parents who allow their children to die in closed cars in summertime heat. And we don't excuse parents who starve their children to death. Plain and simple.

Long wind! No substance! Stay Quiet!

 

[DanishDynamite]

Not doing so well at the reading comprehension again, eh? It's several pages back. One would almost think that you didn't bother to read the posts as you rushed all over yourself to troll.....

You found additional information? Link, please!!

 

[Architect]

The argument "I think it is wrong" is a very strong argument. It is in fact, the basis of all law.

Actually, no. Any suggestion that saying "because I think so", without providing a detailed justification or explanation which can be interrogated, is clearly without foundation and merely serves to bolster suspicions that you are trolling. Or ill.

But in any event, for you to have arrived at your view you must have considered the facts available to you. Therefore I would not consider it unduly onerous for you to set these out in an open, accessible manner which will bolster (or otherwise) your case.

So on you go. Put up or shut up.

 

[Architect]

You found additional information? Link, please!!

The old reading comprehension problem again, eh? Best to stick to these English classes at school, mate.

 

[g4macdad]

Good grief.

Once again, we are not talking about these people being ignorant of the law, though they might have been.

We are talking about two parents being ignorant of the minimum requirements for a baby to grow. They faithfully fed their baby the "milk" and other foods they ate. The baby couldn't absorbe it.

This is reason enough to through away the key?

Jesus. H. Christ!

Just let it go. They will never know what mercy means. THAT is justice to me.

 

[DanishDynamite]

DeeDee, your original post was surely a jest, but since then you've been less than amusing. Frankly, if you ARE seriously arguing what you claim to be, then I can only assume that you suffer from a number of mental illnesses, in which case, continuing to engage you is potentially dangerous for you. On the other hand, if you are NOT seriously making these arguments, then you've gone from a simple clown to a morbid troll, in which case it is fruitless to continue to engage you. Either way, this will be the last response I make to you until I observe some improvement in your mental state and/or emotional maturity. If, on the other hand, you persist or - worse - devolve into more base behaviors, I shall have to place you on 'ignore'.

Whatever.

Amazing how you stop arguing the minute you run out of easy arguments.

Personally, I'd like to say:

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove incivil remark.

Thank you.

To the casual reader: the state of this situation is clear: there is NO excuse in this day and age for parents to fail to feed their child sufficient quantities and types of food to ensure the child's survival; failure to do so is manslaughter, and deserves no less than extended time in prison. Failure to feed a child is a deliberate choice, and shows malice. It's not that this infant was only fed soy milk and apple juice, it's that it wasn't even given enough of that to survive. This means, at best, the parents were engaged in willful ignorance and malicious neglect. Had the baby survived, some leniency would certainly be in order, though these parents should not have custody of children until such time as they had completed appropriate parenting classes. But the baby died, which makes them guilty of manslaughter, plain and simple.

Blah, blah, blah.

Please try to present an argument, even a weak argument.

We don't excuse drunk drivers when they kill. We don't excuse parents who allow their children to die in closed cars in summertime heat. And we don't excuse parents who starve their children to death. Plain and simple.

In short, we don't excuse ignorance when we suspect such ignorance would never happen to us.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use insults or personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[HappyDance]

Unbelievable.

People who are unattentive for a few moments might see their kid run into the street and be run over by a car.

Are they crushed? Yes. Should they be punished? No. Should someone ignorant of the right foods to give their own child so that it dies, be crushed? Yes Should they be thrown in prison for life? No.

On what planet are these two situations even comparable? The baby was underfed for SIX WEEKS!!! That's hardly a moment of inattention.

Here's a link to a news video that shows some pictures of the baby after he had died: http://www.11alive.com/video/player_watl.aspx?aid=71841&bw=
Anyone who had ever seen a baby before in their life would be able to recognize that he was underfed.

I think you would have to be pretty cold hearted not to forgive simple ignorance when there was no malice. When the opposite was in fact the case.

How exactly do you know that there was no malice? Based on what has been reported there is no reason to discount the possibility.

These people did not live somewhere out in the woods where there was no way for them to get help if they didn't know how to care for the baby. They lived in an apartment in a major metropolitan area. They seemed to be able to read well enough to know which foods contained animal products and which ones didn't. They made poor choices and they made them every day of the baby's life*. Choosing to do nothing to relieve their "ignorance" rises (sinks?) to the level of malice.

*Does this give anyone else a little touch of deja vu? I seem to remember another argument with DD about someone making the same mistake day after day...

 

[Architect]

Long wind! No substance! Stay Quiet!

My, what helpful input. I can't wait to see what meaningful input you intend to provide. In the interim, given your appeal to the mods, you may wish to consider whether a suggestion that we purchase plane tickets and fly all the way to Denmark in order to confront DD personally constitutes a "considered likelihood of inciting a violent or felonious act".