So who was the little girl naming? Seriously, I must have missed that part.
When did I say the little girl was guilty of anything that'd require her to have named someone? I said her parents should be found guilty for teaching criminal activity to a child.
Don't you agree? If not, it's a bit like believing its ok to teach a kid how to steal a car; so long as they don't actually steal one. You yourself can practice hotwiring all day long on your own car; but when you teach it to a child, child endangerment laws come into play.
What was the criminal activity?
I think the parents are pretty crazy, but I fail to see a crime here.
Seriously, I want to know what the difference is? Go line by line and tell me why each is not the exact thing the girls' parents are doing.
Again, a child doesn't have to commit a crime for child endangerment laws to trigger; if you bring your child around criminal activity or teach it to them, you violate child endangerment laws.
And child endangerment is different grown adults sharing views. Like I said, once those views become credible threats, those adults are legally accountable for it, as there are laws that pertain to those threats.
Again, a child doesn't have to commit a crime for child endangerment laws to trigger; if you bring your child around criminal activity or teach it to them, you violate child endangerment laws.
And child endangerment is different grown adults sharing views. Like I said, once those views become credible threats, those adults are legally accountable for it, as there are laws that pertain to those threats.
In Canada right?
If America, can you post this law inre criminal activity?
If America, can you post this law inre criminal activity?
Thread title:
"Girl was taught black people should die, Manitoba court hears"
No wonder your posts haven't been making much sense. Manitoba is in CANADA, not the United States, lol. Stop linking American laws and arguments into a Canadian thread discussion.
I though mlauzon gave you plenty of clues he's talking about Canada and not the United States.
If America, can you post this law inre criminal activity?
Thread title:
"Girl was taught black people should die, Manitoba court hears"
No wonder your posts haven't been making much sense. Manitoba is in CANADA, not the United States, lol. Stop linking American laws and arguments into a Canadian thread discussion.
I though mlauzon gave you plenty of clues he's talking about Canada and not the United States.
That's what I was asking. lol But it didn't sound like the other guy was talking about Canadian Law.
If America, can you post this law inre criminal activity?
Thread title:
"Girl was taught black people should die, Manitoba court hears"
No wonder your posts haven't been making much sense. Manitoba is in CANADA, not the United States, lol. Stop linking American laws and arguments into a Canadian thread discussion.
I though mlauzon gave you plenty of clues he's talking about Canada and not the United States.
That's what I was asking. lol But it didn't sound like the other guy was talking about Canadian Law.
Ok, Canadian Law, I got it. Thanks
I'm talking about law in both the US and Canada (and only because others I responded todiverged first), but yes the thread itself has to do with Canada.
...So this is in Canada? The place where it's pretty much a mixture of many cultures. You now it's funny when people can teach bad things, but when confronted it's like they put a mask over their heads about it and don't know what they are talking about. They need to learn that it's 2009. Teaching hatred to your children is nothing but holding them back when they get older. I mean there is a lot of twisted people out there.
That's what I was asking. lol But it didn't sound like the other guy was talking about Canadian Law. Ok, Canadian Law, I got it. Thanks
I'm talking about law in both the US and Canada (and only because others I responded todiverged first), but yes the thread itself has to do with Canada.
That's what I was asking. lol But it didn't sound like the other guy was talking about Canadian Law. Ok, Canadian Law, I got it. Thanks
I'm talking about law in both the US and Canada (and only because others I responded todiverged first), but yes the thread itself has to do with Canada.
You must have given me the wrong one. These only talk about physical hram, sexual abuses, drugs, tatoos, death.
Nothing about personal beliefs, racist comments, etc.
Again, I think the parents are crazy. I just don't see anything illegal with what the girl said and how it differs from what anyone else teaches in a classroom.
You must have given me the wrong one. These only talk about physical hram, sexual abuses, drugs, tatoos, death.
Nothing about personal beliefs, racist comments, etc.
Again, I think the parents are crazy. I just don't see anything illegal with what the girl said and how it differs from what anyone else teaches in a classroom.
You're basing all of your opinions on narrowing your insight to the matter solely on their 'personal beliefs' and right to make 'racist comments', its the etc. that's pertinent to the legalities of it all, not the rest.
As the article states: "The worker responded by saying her prime concern was the calm, matter-of-fact manner in which the girl spoke of killing people on the basis of skin colour."
That's the actual issue at hand, and be it Canada or US law, if you can't see how instructing a child about how minorities are a threat to her life, how they should be killed, and showing the child video of racial violence built on those sentiments, then alright, you're unable to connect the dots and see how that might at all endanger the future of the child.
And I'm pretty sure no school teacher would get away with doing the same with other people's kids. So that's a moot point.
Originally posted by Iseetruth No, just trying to continue the conversation. Why is it that when I provide links or ask for them from one of you two, I get banned?
You didn't ask me for a link to anything here. I'm not sure what you are talking about.
And are you saying you have no connection whatsover to "Ismelltruth"? Both of you were posting at the same time. You just appear to be derailing it looks like.
You must have given me the wrong one. These only talk about physical hram, sexual abuses, drugs, tatoos, death.
Nothing about personal beliefs, racist comments, etc.
Again, I think the parents are crazy. I just don't see anything illegal with what the girl said and how it differs from what anyone else teaches in a classroom.
You're basing all of your opinions on narrowing your insight to the matter solely on their 'personal beliefs' and right to make 'racist comments', its the etc. that's pertinent to the legalities of it all, not the rest.
As the article states: "The worker responded by saying her prime concern was the calm, matter-of-fact manner in which the girl spoke of killing people on the basis of skin colour."
That's the actual issue at hand, and be it Canada or US law, if you can't see how instructing a child about how minorities are a threat to her life, how they should be killed, and showing the child video of racial violence built on those sentiments, then alright, you're unable to connect the dots and see how that might at all endanger the future of the child.
And I'm pretty sure no school teacher would get away with doing the same with other people's kids. So that's a moot point.
I fully understand how messed up it is for what the parents did. Morally.
Why is it that when I provide links or ask for them from one of you two, I get banned?
You didn't ask me for a link to anything here. I'm not sure what you are talking about.
And are you saying you have no connection whatsover to "Ismelltruth"? Both of you were posting at the same time. You just appear to be derailing it looks like.
Plus, I'm mainly addressing the account named "sepher" not "popinjay".
I wasn't posting at the same time. I made this one right after you guys banned the other.
Just like:
barkjj
peaceandlove
liberalfags
diezombies
rainbowsyay
thecensored
imcensored
wercensored
etc.
You should know this already. But hey, you baited me so you have a reason to ban me again, congrats.
I fully understand how messed up it is for what the parents did. Morally. Lawfully? No. (US)
There's your simple answer then, you're incapable of understanding how the child is endangered between being taught the whys and hows of violence against everyone not her skin color.
I fully understand how messed up it is for what the parents did. Morally. Lawfully? No. (US)
There's your simple answer then, you're incapable of understanding how the child is endangered between being taught the whys and hows of violence against everyone not her skin color.
No man, I'm saying there is nothing that says they are messed up lawfully. PC wet dream assumptions and what is in black and white on the law books are two different things. I just wish you would just give me a link to a law, from anywhere in the US, that says I can't tell my kid that black people are bad, will kill you, and need to die.
And damn it, I'm trying to get ready for work and keep getting sucked back into this. lol
Comments
huh?
* ok, you edited it. That's a little better.
I didn't know he was talking about Canadian Laws.
When did I say the little girl was guilty of anything that'd require her to have named someone? I said her parents should be found guilty for teaching criminal activity to a child.
Don't you agree? If not, it's a bit like believing its ok to teach a kid how to steal a car; so long as they don't actually steal one. You yourself can practice hotwiring all day long on your own car; but when you teach it to a child, child endangerment laws come into play.
What was the criminal activity?
I think the parents are pretty crazy, but I fail to see a crime here.
Murdering is criminal activity.
Murdering is criminal activity.
Who was murdered?
And how is it any different than these?
newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2008/05/anti-white-university-professors-and.html
Seriously, I want to know what the difference is? Go line by line and tell me why each is not the exact thing the girls' parents are doing.
He didn't edit anything, that is a verbatim quote from my post about the Criminal Code of Canada...!
--
Michael
Murdering is criminal activity.
Who was murdered?
And how is it any different than these?
newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2008/05/anti-white-university-professors-and.html
Seriously, I want to know what the difference is? Go line by line and tell me why each is not the exact thing the girls' parents are doing.
Again, a child doesn't have to commit a crime for child endangerment laws to trigger; if you bring your child around criminal activity or teach it to them, you violate child endangerment laws.
And child endangerment is different grown adults sharing views. Like I said, once those views become credible threats, those adults are legally accountable for it, as there are laws that pertain to those threats.
Again, a child doesn't have to commit a crime for child endangerment laws to trigger; if you bring your child around criminal activity or teach it to them, you violate child endangerment laws.
And child endangerment is different grown adults sharing views. Like I said, once those views become credible threats, those adults are legally accountable for it, as there are laws that pertain to those threats.
In Canada right?
If America, can you post this law inre criminal activity?
Thread title:
"Girl was taught black people should die, Manitoba court hears"
No wonder your posts haven't been making much sense. Manitoba is in CANADA, not the United States, lol. Stop linking American laws and arguments into a Canadian thread discussion.
I though mlauzon gave you plenty of clues he's talking about Canada and not the United States.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Thread title:
"Girl was taught black people should die, Manitoba court hears"
No wonder your posts haven't been making much sense. Manitoba is in CANADA, not the United States, lol. Stop linking American laws and arguments into a Canadian thread discussion.
I though mlauzon gave you plenty of clues he's talking about Canada and not the United States.
That's what I was asking. lol But it didn't sound like the other guy was talking about Canadian Law.
Ok, Canadian Law, I got it. Thanks
Thread title:
"Girl was taught black people should die, Manitoba court hears"
No wonder your posts haven't been making much sense. Manitoba is in CANADA, not the United States, lol. Stop linking American laws and arguments into a Canadian thread discussion.
I though mlauzon gave you plenty of clues he's talking about Canada and not the United States.
That's what I was asking. lol But it didn't sound like the other guy was talking about Canadian Law.
Ok, Canadian Law, I got it. Thanks
I'm talking about law in both the US and Canada (and only because others I responded todiverged first), but yes the thread itself has to do with Canada.
...So this is in Canada? The place where it's pretty much a mixture of many cultures. You now it's funny when people can teach bad things, but when confronted it's like they put a mask over their heads about it and don't know what they are talking about. They need to learn that it's 2009. Teaching hatred to your children is nothing but holding them back when they get older. I mean there is a lot of twisted people out there.
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
I'm talking about law in both the US and Canada (and only because others I responded todiverged first), but yes the thread itself has to do with Canada.
Post the US Law that you are refering to.
Methinks we've been trolled.
"TO MICHAEL!"
No, just trying to continue the conversation.
Why is it that when I provide links or ask for them from one of you two, I get banned?
I'm talking about law in both the US and Canada (and only because others I responded todiverged first), but yes the thread itself has to do with Canada.
Post the US Law that you are refering to.
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/ncpca_statute_child_endangerment_2007.pdf
Find your state and learn.
ok, thx.
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/ncpca_statute_child_endangerment_2007.pdf
Find your state and learn.
You must have given me the wrong one. These only talk about physical hram, sexual abuses, drugs, tatoos, death.
Nothing about personal beliefs, racist comments, etc.
Again, I think the parents are crazy. I just don't see anything illegal with what the girl said and how it differs from what anyone else teaches in a classroom.
www.youtube.com/watch
Explain how what is being taught to these kids any different.
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/ncpca_statute_child_endangerment_2007.pdf
Find your state and learn.
You must have given me the wrong one. These only talk about physical hram, sexual abuses, drugs, tatoos, death.
Nothing about personal beliefs, racist comments, etc.
Again, I think the parents are crazy. I just don't see anything illegal with what the girl said and how it differs from what anyone else teaches in a classroom.
You're basing all of your opinions on narrowing your insight to the matter solely on their 'personal beliefs' and right to make 'racist comments', its the etc. that's pertinent to the legalities of it all, not the rest.
As the article states: "The worker responded by saying her prime concern was the calm, matter-of-fact manner in which the girl spoke of killing people on the basis of skin colour."
That's the actual issue at hand, and be it Canada or US law, if you can't see how instructing a child about how minorities are a threat to her life, how they should be killed, and showing the child video of racial violence built on those sentiments, then alright, you're unable to connect the dots and see how that might at all endanger the future of the child.
And I'm pretty sure no school teacher would get away with doing the same with other people's kids. So that's a moot point.
You didn't ask me for a link to anything here. I'm not sure what you are talking about.
And are you saying you have no connection whatsover to "Ismelltruth"? Both of you were posting at the same time. You just appear to be derailing it looks like.
"TO MICHAEL!"
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/ncpca_statute_child_endangerment_2007.pdf
Find your state and learn.
You must have given me the wrong one. These only talk about physical hram, sexual abuses, drugs, tatoos, death.
Nothing about personal beliefs, racist comments, etc.
Again, I think the parents are crazy. I just don't see anything illegal with what the girl said and how it differs from what anyone else teaches in a classroom.
You're basing all of your opinions on narrowing your insight to the matter solely on their 'personal beliefs' and right to make 'racist comments', its the etc. that's pertinent to the legalities of it all, not the rest.
As the article states: "The worker responded by saying her prime concern was the calm, matter-of-fact manner in which the girl spoke of killing people on the basis of skin colour."
That's the actual issue at hand, and be it Canada or US law, if you can't see how instructing a child about how minorities are a threat to her life, how they should be killed, and showing the child video of racial violence built on those sentiments, then alright, you're unable to connect the dots and see how that might at all endanger the future of the child.
And I'm pretty sure no school teacher would get away with doing the same with other people's kids. So that's a moot point.
I fully understand how messed up it is for what the parents did. Morally.
Lawfully? No. (US)
Westboro has a history of skirting the law. They frequently promote non-violence because of it even, as crazy as they are.
They haven't been immune from legalities however, here's a good example: http://www.ketv.com/news/13569930/detail.html
The child involved here triggered child endangerment laws due to the possibility of violence.
You didn't ask me for a link to anything here. I'm not sure what you are talking about.
And are you saying you have no connection whatsover to "Ismelltruth"? Both of you were posting at the same time. You just appear to be derailing it looks like.
Plus, I'm mainly addressing the account named "sepher" not "popinjay".
I wasn't posting at the same time. I made this one right after you guys banned the other.
Just like:
barkjj
peaceandlove
liberalfags
diezombies
rainbowsyay
thecensored
imcensored
wercensored
etc.
You should know this already. But hey, you baited me so you have a reason to ban me again, congrats.
BRB, after I get it work....
Westboro has a history of skirting the law. They frequently promote non-violence because of it even, as crazy as they are.
They haven't been immune from legalities however, here's a good example: http://www.ketv.com/news/13569930/detail.html
The child involved here triggered child endangerment laws due to the possibility of violence.
Alright man. I wasn't trying to be a smartass or be difficult. Just so you know.
There's your simple answer then, you're incapable of understanding how the child is endangered between being taught the whys and hows of violence against everyone not her skin color.
There's your simple answer then, you're incapable of understanding how the child is endangered between being taught the whys and hows of violence against everyone not her skin color.
No man, I'm saying there is nothing that says they are messed up lawfully. PC wet dream assumptions and what is in black and white on the law books are two different things. I just wish you would just give me a link to a law, from anywhere in the US, that says I can't tell my kid that black people are bad, will kill you, and need to die.
And damn it, I'm trying to get ready for work and keep getting sucked back into this. lol