When morons breed...

[DanishDynamite]

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.

Yes.

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.

Of course it is acceptable. It happens all the time.

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.

Please, when you have an actual argument against my position, could you raise some sort of flag? Thanks.

 

[Architect]

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

This is rather rich, coming from someone who has comprehensively failed to present a proper argument to support what is clearly an untenable position.

 

[Architect]

DD Finally Snaps

Whoah! Lets look at that post in more detail.

Originally Posted by Architect
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.

Yes.

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.

Of course it is acceptable. It happens all the time.

So to be quite clear; it is acceptable for parents to kill their children, and a tragic RTA is comparable to starving a baby to death over a 6 week period.

Incredible. You're a buffoon and a troll. Begone.

 

[DanishDynamite]

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?

If they were aware of what to look for, yes. Do you think parents should be sent to jail for life if their kid suddenly runs across the road and is killed by a car?

Do you think parents should be sent to jail for life if their kid suddenly throws up and chokes on his vomit, while he was out of sight for 2 minutes?

Do you think parents should be sent to jail for life if their kid and themselves live in some African boondocks, where the parents are relief workers, and the kid suddenly dies after apparently not gaining as much weight per week as he should?

Do you think parents should be sent to jail for life if their kid, regularly fed, suddenly dies, despite the parents best efforts?

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?

I don't see how that follows from my position.

 

[Architect]

DD

You've just said that you think it is acceptable for parents to kill their children. I see no reason why we should entertain your incoherent, and frankly ludicrous, ramblings any further.

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.

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite
Of course it is acceptable. It happens all the time.

 

[DanishDynamite]

That is all you are doing; presenting a personal view.

Correct. I believe this is what everyone here does.

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.

Yaddah, yaddah. Please, say something of relevance or I shall tire of this thread.

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.

Yawn. BTW your = you're" in the second sentence. Please try to read up on your basic English grammar. Thanks.

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.

Entertaining. When you have a response of relevance, please present it.

 

[Architect]

Yawn. BTW your = you're" in the second sentence. Please try to read up on your basic English grammar. Thanks.

No, it's not. Your English is still piss poor.

However how you can show your face here again when you said that it was acceptable for parents to kill their children I do not know.

You are a buffoon and a troll. Begone.

 

[DanishDynamite]

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.

There you go. The current laws are the result of elected representatives saying "because I feel it is right", when asked why they voted for a Law.

Someone as braindead as, perhaps even yourself, might take their notion of "right" and "wrong" from what Laws have been agreed upon. Others know "right" and "wrong" intrinsically.

 

[Architect]

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

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite
Of course it is acceptable. It happens all the time.

Begone, fool.

 

[DanishDynamite]

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

No. It is however, a long moment of ignorance.

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.

Is there some requiremnet for people having children in the US to know when a baby is underfed?

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

Please provide said evidence.

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.

In your opinion. In my opinion, they were completely ignorant of how to raise a baby, and remained so.

*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...

Not understood.

 

[Alt+F4]

Was that report of their older children being underweight as well refer to another family?

Yes, that's a different case involving a family with five children. The youngest, a 6 month old baby died under similar circumstances.

 

[Z]

Long wind! No substance! Stay Quiet!

Go ogle your Plastic Jesus. You have nothing of substance to contribute to any thread whatsoever.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Whoah! Lets look at that post in more detail.










So to be quite clear; it is acceptable for parents to kill their children, and a tragic RTA is comparable to starving a baby to death over a 6 week period.

Incredible. You're a buffoon and a troll. Begone.

I love how you need to twist everything I say.

You trully are pathetic. Oh, well.

 

[DanishDynamite]

DD

You've just said that you think it is acceptable for parents to kill their children. I see no reason why we should entertain your incoherent, and frankly ludicrous, ramblings any further.

I said that we must accept that children die, through accident or ignorance of their parents. It is not acceptable that they die through willfull negligance.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Wow. That was rather long. Still, I believe I have now answered all relevant comments regarding my view.

Looking forward to any further relevant comments.

 

[HappyDance]

I said that we must accept that children die, through accident or ignorance of their parents. It is not acceptable that they die through willfull negligance.

And why do you assume this case is one of simple ignorance, rather than willful negligence? It's not just a case of them feeding the baby the wrong things. They did not feed the baby enough to sustain his life. They seem to understand that they themselves have to eat--how did this knowledge not translate into "hmmmm, maybe we'd better feed the baby, too"?

So far you've failed to make a convincing argument that these people simply didn't know how to care for an infant. All they had to do was feed the poor thing; even the diet they were giving him, while it would have left him malnourished, would have sustained his life had it been given in adequate amounts. If the parents are smart enough to feed themselves, there is no way that they are stupid enough to fail to recognize that the child was wasting away. Simple ignorance is not a reasonable assessment.

 

[DanishDynamite]

And why do you assume this case is one of simple ignorance, rather than willful negligence?

From the facts available to me. If you have additional facts, please share them.

It's not just a case of them feeding the baby the wrong things. They did not feed the baby enough to sustain his life. They seem to understand that they themselves have to eat--how did this knowledge not translate into "hmmmm, maybe we'd better feed the baby, too"?

From the facts available to me, they did feed their child an overabundance of vegan milk.

So far you've failed to make a convincing argument that these people simply didn't know how to care for an infant.

In what sense?

All they had to do was feed the poor thing; even the diet they were giving him, while it would have left him malnourished, would have sustained his life had it been given in adequate amounts. If the parents are smart enough to feed themselves, there is no way that they are stupid enough to fail to recognize that the child was wasting away. Simple ignorance is not a reasonable assessment.

I agree, if they had the knowledge which you seem to say they did. Evidence?

 

[HappyDance]

No. It is however, a long moment of ignorance.

Is there some requiremnet for people having children in the US to know when a baby is underfed?

We have this thing in the US called "common sense". Do they not have that in Denmark?

Please provide said evidence.

Did you look at the video? Did you see the pictures of the baby's bones protruding from his skin? I can say with some assurance that he didn't look like that when he was born.

In your opinion. In my opinion, they were completely ignorant of how to raise a baby, and remained so.

And that's the problem. They chose to remain ignorant. Relatives told them that the baby did not seem to be thriving; they had six weeks worth of opportunities to do something about it. They didn't. That's not a mistake, it's a conscious choice. A choice which killed their baby. They killed their baby with their poor choices. I don't know how else to explain this to you (she said as she heard the happy snorting and despaired of the mud on her clothes...).

Not understood.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

[g4macdad]

Go ogle your Plastic Jesus. You have nothing of substance to contribute to any thread whatsoever.

Thank you so much. ROTFL

 

[skeptifem]

Good grief.

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

Jesus. H. Christ!

ok i could just claim that i had no idea that shooting someone in the head would cause them to die.

and the point is that ignorance doesnt excuse the result of the ignorance. If the law let people go based on ignorance anyone could claim ignorance and we wouldnt need jails or courts at all.

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?

you know thats not true. expert testimony states they simply did not feed their baby enough food. it wouldnt matter if it was vegan milk or not.