ParentingBanter.com

ParentingBanter.com (http://www.parentingbanter.com/index.php)
-   Spanking (http://www.parentingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Don's View of Parents (http://www.parentingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=47555)

0:-> December 29th 06 03:44 PM

Don's View of Parents
 
Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Fern's the one that defended the "rights" of the preacher already
convicted before (and happily admitting to) for savagely beating a child
bloody for 20 minutes.


Are you referring to the case where the JURY AQUITTED the accused?
I would think you would stop calling it a BEATING knowing that
a jury did so aquit.


Actually juries "aquit"[sic] the obviously guilty, from time to time,
Greg. Do you, for instance, think OJ didn't do it?

There is much more than "guilt" by facts in a juried trial.


Your exaggeration and zealotry become obvious when you do that, [lie redacted].


I don't exaggerate. The preacher got off on swaying public opinion Greg.

Around those parts a bloody thrashing tends to be considered "spanking."
They call it "switchin'" in those parts. Or a "good lickin'."

The fact is that children were beaten severely, both by their own
descriptions AND BY THE PREACHER HIMSELF who justified them as
biblically mandated. And by the congregation members.

You, who constantly claim the court is corrupt, Greg, suddenly want to
use the court's process to support your claim I exaggerate when I say
Fern supported the rights of a child abuser...a self admitted one?

She thus defended the right to beat children bloody. It's not a legal
question at all, Greg. It's a moral one. Most spankers would be shocked
to learn what he and his flock did to the children of the church. Even
most Christian ones.

Did you read how he chortled over beating a 17 year old girl for twenty
minutes or more until she was bloody, for "trying to take over the church?"

Go back, review the case.

I didn't argue he was innocent or guilty by law, Greg, but only by his
OWN admission and that of the parishioners, who insist beating children
bloody is okay, according to their faith.

It's you and Fern and others that are zealots. Hairsplitters that want
the law to decide if an injured child is actually injured or not,
despite blood and bruises, when the perps themselves have admitted to
injuring, deliberately so, the child, who damn well knows they are in pain.

0:-


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com