- 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
re: OK transgender student charged with assaulting female high school classmates in bathroom
Posted on 6/4/23 at 10:20 am to upgrayedd
Posted on 6/4/23 at 10:20 am to upgrayedd
quote:
He's not naive.
He's very naive, sheltered and lives in a pretty tiny bubble. This is the same damn moron who believes child rapists should be places in minimum security with no safeguards.
He absolutely believes that child sexuality is harmless. he defends it because he believes its a societal benefit.
This post was edited on 6/4/23 at 10:22 am
3
Posted on 6/4/23 at 10:23 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
He's very naive, sheltered and lives in a pretty tiny bubble.
He absolutely believes that child sexuality is harmless. he defends it because he believes its a societal benefit.
Like I said, his defense of such things is nothing more than a Pavlovian response to oppose traditional orthodoxy under the guise of being open minded and intellectually superior. It doesn't go beyond that.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 10:24 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Like I said, his defense of such things is nothing more than a Pavlovian response to oppose traditional orthodoxy under the guise of being open minded and intellectually superior.
I think he's a true believer.
He doesnt see harm in sexualizing kids.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 10:41 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I think he's a true believer.
He doesnt see harm in sexualizing kids.
I think he believes whatever he needs to believe to be in the good graces of the intellectual crowd.
If that means sexualizing kids then so be it.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 10:54 am to Oates Mustache
quote:
I know we all talk big on here, but if I had a daughter, and a dude like this beat on her, I'm finding that POS and putting him in the hospital. You're not going to hide behind the "I'm a girl" bullshite with me. You're getting an epic arse whipping.
Had it not occurred in a bathroom that probably would have been handled by other male students.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 11:06 am to dcbl
the only time these men could beat some one up, and it took a young girl to be that person
congrats tough guy
congrats tough guy
Posted on 6/4/23 at 11:30 am to upgrayedd
quote:
In other words, he's just a run of the mill narcissist.
Y’all remember when PedoHank was only defending “drag queen story hour”? He’s now advanced to defending trannies beating up girls in bathrooms. PedoHank supports child abuse and probably gets off on hurting children. Predators like him deserve no quarter
Posted on 6/4/23 at 11:48 am to Bourre
This young man would have had to quit school after the other boys caught wind of what he did.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 11:55 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
child rapists should be places in minimum security with no safeguards
If by "no safeguards" means the gen pop can take these folks out....im fine with that
Posted on 6/4/23 at 11:58 am to Bulldogblitz
quote:
If by "no safeguards" means the gen pop can take these folks out....im fine with that
Thats what he's afraid of. He wants to protect the rapist by putting them in min security.
I'm not kidding either. Thats his only concern. Not medium security, the least possible.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 12:24 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
Hank and the trannie crew said this sort of behavior is impossible.
Either that or "acceptable"! Freaking idiots!
Posted on 6/4/23 at 12:32 pm to Bourre
quote:your ability to project is absolutely amazing. Where did I defend the assailant? Post the time. Qote the statement. You know that you can’t do this, because I didn’t defend anyone.
Y’all remember when Hank was only defending “drag queen story hour”? He’s now advanced to defending trannies beating up girls in bathrooms.
One kid beat up another kid. The aggressor should be punished. The transgenderism issue play no role whatsoever in this confrontation. Are you too stupid to understand that concept? or are you just such a Damned ideologue that you insist upon seeing monsters under the bed, where they simply do not exist?
Posted on 6/4/23 at 12:38 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:why do you lie? Seriously, it’s possible to disagree with me, without lying about my positions. You people are either entirely disingenuous, or simply too fricking stupid remember what I actually said.
This is the same damn moron who believes child rapists should be places in minimum security with no safeguards.
I said that child sex offenders should probably be housed in lower security prisons, because they are not an escape risk, and because it is much cheaper to house them there. About 1/3 of the cost. Given that they are not going to escape from either prison, why spend three times as much money? It makes absolutely no fricking sense whatsoever to a fiscal conservative. by ignoring this simple and unassailable fact, you are outing yourself as not being (even remotely) a fiscal conservative.
Further, yes, they are at greater risk of assault by their fellow inmates in a general population prison. Like it or not, our legal system sentences people to incarceration. It does not sentence them to be physically assaulted or killed in prison. By insisting upon putting that class of offender into a population where they will almost certainly be assaulted and/or killed, you are supporting vigilantism. You know it, and I know it.
By contrast, I do not support vigilantism, whether against child sex offenders or against anyone else. Unlike you, I support the rule of law.
This post was edited on 6/4/23 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 6/4/23 at 12:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
because they are not an escape risk
Pure conjecture. I cannot fathom why you would make an argument to make a child rapists life easier. WTF Hank. Sometimes you take some really disgusting positions in your quest for e-attention.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 12:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The transgenderism issue play no role whatsoever in this confrontation.
You know this how?
And it absolutely played a part in the assault happening in an isolated spot with no normal males to intervene.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 12:42 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:if by this, you mean that I feel any prisoner (regardless of the nature of that prisoners offense) should serve the term of his incarceration without being subject to intra-inmate vigilantism, yes. You are absolutely correct.
He wants to protect the rapist by putting them in min security.
A system that intentionally and knowingly exposes inmates to vigilantism is not a justice system at all. if you were sentenced to 15 years, you should serve your 15 years. But you were not sentenced to assault, torture, or execution.
you know this, but you want it to happen. You don’t care about the Penal Code, or the sentences which were actually imposed upon these offenders by a combination of the court system injuries of their peers. You are a bloodthirsty vigilante. The funny thing is, you are probably proud of it.
This post was edited on 6/4/23 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 6/4/23 at 12:43 pm to Flats
quote:
You know this how?
Hank consistently posts conjecture as fact and sometimes even goes as far as to say his conjecture and the conclusions he draws based upon that conjecture is “the rule of law.” Just know he is not an expert on the rule of law.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 12:44 pm to BBONDS25
quote:bullshite. There are studies piled on top of studies, and data piles on top of data, indicating that these prisoners are very passive, and pose almost a zero risk of attempted escape.
because they are not an escape riskquote:
Pure conjecture.
quote:And you were supposedly a lawyer, with the implication that you have some respect for the law. I cannot believe that you support vigilantism.
I cannot fathom why you would make an argument to make a child rapists life easier.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 12:45 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
if by this, you mean that I feel any prisoner (regardless of the nature of that prisoners offense) should serve the term of his incarceration without being subject to intra-inmate vigilantism, yes. You are absolutely correct.
More conjecture. There are procedures in place to prevent this. You don’t get to make some wild speculative remark, then use that remark as the basis for an argument that you bring back to somehow being the “rule of law”. It’s a classic bootstrap. You do it a lot.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 12:47 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
And you were supposedly a lawyer, with the implication that you have some respect for the law. I cannot believe that you support vigilantism.
Never once did I say that. Your failed attempt to assign qualities to people who don’t blindly believe your silly conjecture and the conclusions You draw from them is pathetic. You’re a family law attorney in a small town in Texas. Your expertise is in Texas family law. That’s it. Your expertise goes no further. Quit calling people names because they don’t buy your poorly constructed bootstrap arguments. This post was edited on 6/4/23 at 12:47 pm
Page 3 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News