- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:37 pm to Darth_Vader
Dipshit, the water in the tank is the nuisance. It's a fricking kiddie pool. If drained, or properly secured, it is not really an object that is likely to determine a mortal outcome; thus, it is not an attractive nuisance -- meaning the church would not be in possession of a hazardous attractive nuisance. I'm sorry you want to mince words to fit your stupid disposition.
Your second part is a grandiose display of ignorance.
Your third statement is another illustration of your ignorance.
Your second part is a grandiose display of ignorance.
Your third statement is another illustration of your ignorance.
This post was edited on 9/25/14 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:40 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Almost as dumb as the one you just made.
Wow Darth! You're deep man.
This post was edited on 10/16/14 at 10:22 am
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:40 pm to The Third Leg
Get him
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:41 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
Dipshit, the water in the tank is the nuisance. It's a fricking kiddie pool. If drained, or properly secured, it is not really an object that is likely to create a mortal outcome; thus, it is not an attractive nuisance -- meanig the church would not be in possession of a hazardous attractive nuisance. I'm sorry you want to mince words to fit your stupid disposition.
Where was the tank? What steps were taken to secure it? Why are you incapable of carrying on a civilized discussion without having to resort to childish insults?
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:42 pm to Darth_Vader
The tank was accessible, and full of water. I think that is safe to assume at this point.
This post was edited on 9/25/14 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:45 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
The tank was accessible, and full of water.
Why was it accessible? How exactly did the child gain access to this tank?
quote:
I think that is safe to assume at this point.
1. Nobody pays you to think.
2. You know what assuming does.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:52 pm to Darth_Vader
According to this story, a logical person would assume the child accessed on it's own accord when it was separated from its sister. I am giving the family and humanity the benefit of the doubt, and assuming they didn't toss the baby in the tank for a few laps.
Your last part is a further illustration of your ignorance.
Your last part is a further illustration of your ignorance.
This post was edited on 9/25/14 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:53 pm to Green Chili Tiger
Lots of sucky people ITT.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:53 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
kiddie pool. If drained, or properly secured, it is not really an object that is likely to create a mortal outcome
Actually it determines the ultimate mortal outcome
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:57 pm to Itismemc
I edited for you.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:58 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
'Prayer Baby'
really?
This post was edited on 9/25/14 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 9/25/14 at 4:00 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
According to this story, a logical person would assume the child accessed on it's own accord when it was separated from his sister. I am giving the family and humanity the benefit of the doubt, and assuming they didn't toss the baby in the tank for a few laps.
Your last part is a further illustration of your ignorance.
Once again you're assuming. Also, the fact you don't realize that you should never allow a 22 month old to become "separated" from whomever is responsible for the child only goes to illustrate your own ignorance. The fact of the matter is, when in charge of a 22 month old child, it's up to YOU to make sure YOU do not become separated from said child. The child's parents were responsible for allowing their teen daughter to supervise this child. That much I know for FACT. As to the Church's responsibility, until we know what measures were taken (or not taken) to secure this pool, we cannot say what, if any, responsibility they have in this matter. The church very well may have some or even all responsibility here, but as things stand now based on what information we have here, there is no way for us to know if that's the case.
A FWIW, I've debated a lot of people on here and you rank perhaps on the dead bottom of that list. The only comeback you have to anyone who does not agree with you is to call them ignorant.
This post was edited on 9/25/14 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 9/25/14 at 4:01 pm to cas4t
quote:
really?
That's the exact headline of the linked article.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 4:11 pm to Darth_Vader
Darth, it is clear you do not understand civil law and the doctrine of attractive nuisance, which is why I call you ignorant. You have displayed much ignorance in is thread, I have not.
You're one of those guys that wants to talk about the way you think the world should spin; personal responsibility of the family, blah, and blah. I'm here telling you how it does spin, and your retort is to say things that simply are not true -- that is the mark of an ignorant man. We are on page five and nobody has offered a logical conclusion as to how the kid could drown in this if it were properly secured. One poster even said every church he has been inside has them drained when not in use.
By your measure, nobody should ever discuss anything until one hundred percent of the facts have been obtained. I do see that as the standard on his board.
You're one of those guys that wants to talk about the way you think the world should spin; personal responsibility of the family, blah, and blah. I'm here telling you how it does spin, and your retort is to say things that simply are not true -- that is the mark of an ignorant man. We are on page five and nobody has offered a logical conclusion as to how the kid could drown in this if it were properly secured. One poster even said every church he has been inside has them drained when not in use.
By your measure, nobody should ever discuss anything until one hundred percent of the facts have been obtained. I do see that as the standard on his board.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 4:15 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
Darth, it is clear you do not understand civil law and the doctrine of attractive nuisance, which is why I call you ignorant. You have displayed much ignorance in is thread, I have not.
You claim to know civil law and yet based on nothing but what you yourself have admitted to "assumptions" you have already tried and found negligence on the part of this church.
quote:
You're one of those guys that wants to talk about the way you think the world should spin; personal responsibility of the family, blah, and blah. I'm here telling you how it does spin, and your retort is to say things that simply are not true -- that is the mark of an ignorant man. We are on page five and nobody has offered a logical conclusion as to how the kid could drown in this if it were properly secured. One poster even said every church he has been inside has them drained when not in use.
By your measure, nobody should ever discuss anything until one hundred percent of the facts have been obtained. I do see that as the standard on his board.
And here you are again , and still the only retort to anything that does not agree with you is to claim those who do not agree with you are "ignorant". It's obvious you lack the ability to debate so I'm done with you.
This post was edited on 9/25/14 at 4:16 pm
Posted on 9/25/14 at 4:17 pm to Darth_Vader
I'll remember this one, Darth. You keep searching for those coherent thoughts, and I'll keep being reasonable.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 4:24 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
I'll remember this one, Darth. You keep searching for those coherent thoughts, and I'll keep being reasonable.
The truly sad thing is, I'll bet in your mind you actually believe you're being reasonable. Your own closed-minded prejudice has blinded you and made it impossible for you to look at this from an objective standpoint. To you the church is guilty because you're against churches and anything bad about them must be and always is true. I see this about you clear as can be. Too bad you cannot see it.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 4:54 pm to Darth_Vader
What a terrible tragedy. I can't imagine what that family, especially the young girl, are going through.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 5:31 pm to TigerNutwhack
Maybe it was filled because the kid that died was getting baptized. Would that alleviate the church's liability?
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News