If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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:- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
OT The "Child's" Point Of View | Pop | Foster Parents | 7 | June 20th 05 03:13 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |