• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Unarmed 22 year old white mother killed over cigarettes

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
There is no issue with the moderation. No one here is being outright racist, except according to people who look at the world with racist blinders/glasses on. Don't get what you want? RACIST. What a pathetic way of going through life.


It's like I said in the last thread you hijacked with your accusations, it's really not healthy (both for you personally and for the progression of society) for you to look around trying to apply that racist label anywhere you think it might fit. You are wrong 99% of the time, and you end up full of hate and angst.


You really need to get a handle on that temper of yours. It might get you hurt one day.
LOL

Get hurt one day, hehehehehehehehehe

Funny guy
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,310
175
106
The parents of these stupid kids need to be held accountable as well. I'd even go so far as to see what criminal charges could be thrown at the shooter's parents. A message needs to be sent to parents that the law can come down on them for the crimes they allow their kids to commit because they're not doing their job as parents.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,911
1,063
126
Is it just me or did they publish the full names and addresses of juvenile offenders? Isn't that usually illegal?

Also, I would think spidey would support what they did. Sounds like they were just "standing their ground".
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,557
671
126
Is it just me or did they publish the full names and addresses of juvenile offenders? Isn't that usually illegal?

Also, I would think spidey would support what they did. Sounds like they were just "standing their ground".
"Good shoot", "no duty to retreat", amidoingitrite?
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
The parents of these stupid kids need to be held accountable as well. I'd even go so far as to see what criminal charges could be thrown at the shooter's parents. A message needs to be sent to parents that the law can come down on them for the crimes they allow their kids to commit because they're not doing their job as parents.
Now how did the parents allow their kids to do this? Please explain. Also show me the comments you made in many other threads where killers were kids and you called for the parents to be charged. Just curious?
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
Now how did the parents allow their kids to do this? Please explain. Also show me the comments you made in many other threads where killers were kids and you called for the parents to be charged. Just curious?
Hypocrisy is not a thoughtful argument; and CoW's statement was a reasonable one.

I could see parents being held criminally negligent in their rearing of thugs, yabos, and violent racist rednecks. It would have to be judge on a case-by-case basis; but more often than not, dysfunctional behavior ont he part of the child is directly related to dysfunctional behavior on the part of the parent.

Not to say that a parent can control a 15 year old; but rather that without overt attempts to help a clearly troubled youth, there is a strong degree of criminal negligence.

Geo: If you want to know what you are like look at who your friends are. Classy is acting like a nit-wit and needed to be called out on it. I suggest that, in the interest of the best possible discourse, you free yourself to call-to-task folks on your side when they provide what can I can only be describe as "half witted emotional knee-jerk reactions". I'm not saying that you should take this on as an obligation, I'm just suggesting you feel free to disagree with people "on your side" or even being "attacked by idiots on the other side" when those folks that ascribe to your ideals are off-base.

As you said, and I 100% agree, the caveat that allows for honest discourse is this:
Provided of course, the person holding it is willing to set it aside if it were to be truly disproved. As should always be the case.
When something contrary to this becomes obvious I think it's important that we shut down argumentation that I would call "ideologically driven asshattery"
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY