When morons breed...

[DanishDynamite]

Maybe this is a good time to issue a reminder of what was said earlier and of what the prosecutor said in the trial. The child did not die because he was fed soy milk or other vegan foods. He died from starvation because he was not given enough food. Of any kind.

Thank you.

 

[DanishDynamite]

How do you know it was a mistake. They also made a whole series of mistakes. For starters, they made mistakes every time they fed the child and every time they ere warned about seeking medical help.

From the press quotes. Were they wrong?

How do you know?

From the press quotes. Were they wrong?

 

[Architect]

If there is more to the story, I want to hear it.

Well get off your beam end and look into it; you have proposed a hypothesis, viz that the parents were ignorant and unaware of the effects of failing to feed their child, however this appears to be based on your own personal wishes rather than having any factual base. It's not our job to prove your theory, but yours.

 

[Architect]

Nowadays, having a child by yourself in pure freedom, is almost not possible.

I think you'll find that what you're actually arguing is:

Nowadays, killing a child by yourself in pure freedom, is almost not possible.

This is right and proper.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Well get off your beam end and look into it; you have proposed a hypothesis, viz that the parents were ignorant and unaware of the effects of failing to feed their child, however this appears to be based on your own personal wishes rather than having any factual base. It's not our job to prove your theory, but yours.

Yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.

The basis upon which we have been arguing this case has been the same for both of us since the beginning.

If you feel you have additional information to add, please do so.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I think you'll find that what you're actually arguing is:




This is right and proper.

I thought you claimed English reading abilities?

Perhaps you are just confused?

 

[Architect]

They made a mistake. God knows, we all make mistakes. But they didn't do it out of malice! You are not willing to excuse a person from making a mistake? What sort of John Wayne, black-and-white, no-empathy monster are you?!!

You're not really following this, are you?

Firstly the American court clearly did believe that malice was shown, and since they have access to the full evidence (and you have admitted that you don't) they do rather have the benefit.

Secondly, malice is not required. You have acknowledged this already.

But at the end of the day, you're just a wind-up merchant. From your emails, it appears that you are merely seeking an argument; to be specific, you have wholly failed to provide a cohesive, cogent, and detailed argument in support of your position.

What depresses me most about this is that you completely overlook the fact that the child died. You apparently seek to capitalise upon this as an excuse to troll. I hope you're proud of yourself.

 

[Architect]

Yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.

The basis upon which we have been arguing this case has been the same for both of us since the beginning.

If you feel you have additional information to add, please do so.

Is that the best you can do? Provide an unsubstantiated viewpoint and, when challenged to support it, refuse to carry out any research. And shout "yaddah, yaddah, yaddah".

Try harder.

 

[Architect]

I thought you claimed English reading abilities?

Perhaps you are just confused?

I've really tried to avoid pointing this out, but sod it. Your English is far, far poorer than you think.

Alternatively, you have comprehension problems. But I'm going to be kind and assume that it's a piss-poor grasp of the nuances of the language.

And since it's not my first language, I'm allowed to make comments like that.

 

[Z]

So was it their first child, or wasn't it? I'm a little confused.

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

 

[skeptifem]

I agree. They should be made to learn a lesson about being so adverse to knowing real important stuff.

But sending them to jail for life?

I simply don't find this reasonable in any way.

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.

They made a mistake. God knows, we all make mistakes. But they didn't do it out of malice! You are not willing to excuse a person from making a mistake?

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.

 

[DanishDynamite]

You're not really following this, are you?

It seems I am the only one to do so.

Firstly the American court clearly did believe that malice was shown, and since they have access to the full evidence (and you have admitted that you don't) they do rather have the benefit.

Evidence of this. Thank you.

Secondly, malice is not required. You have acknowledged this already.

But at the end of the day, you're just a wind-up merchant. From your emails, it appears that you are merely seeking an argument; to be specific, you have wholly failed to provide a cohesive, cogent, and detailed argument in support of your position.

Blah, blah, blah.

What e-mails? Try to learn the lingo on boards like this. Otherwise you just come up looking ridiculous.

It is also amusing to see how your argument regarding this case has no substance and refers only to the legal positions as basis. Grow up, my friend.

What depresses me most about this is that you completely overlook the fact that the child died. You apparently seek to capitalise upon this as an excuse to troll. I hope you're proud of yourself.

What depresses me most is that it wouldn't matter to you one way or the other whether the child lived or died. What matters to you is whether the Law was upheld.

You make me sick, my friend.

 

[Architect]

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?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Is that the best you can do? Provide an unsubstantiated viewpoint and, when challenged to support it, refuse to carry out any research. And shout "yaddah, yaddah, yaddah".

Try harder.

Is that the best you can do?

Please try to challenge what I said. It earns respect when a poster is able to that.

 

[skeptifem]

You say it not an excuse to be ignorant. I say, why not?

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?

 

[DanishDynamite]

I've really tried to avoid pointing this out, but sod it. Your English is far, far poorer than you think.

Alternatively, you have comprehension problems. But I'm going to be kind and assume that it's a piss-poor grasp of the nuances of the language.

And since it's not my first language, I'm allowed to make comments like that.

You'll grasp any straws, won't you?

 

[Architect]

Evidence of this. Thank you.

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.

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.

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?

 

[DanishDynamite]

So was it their first child, or wasn't it? I'm a little confused.

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

You found additional information? Link please!

 

[Architect]

You'll grasp any straws, won't you?

That would be "You'll grasp at any straws, won't you?" Now away and brush up on your basic comprehension skills a bit more. Tosk.

 

[Architect]

You found additional information? Link please!

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.....