Started By
Message

re: 'Prayer Baby' drowns in church's baptism tank

Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:21 pm to
Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
65016 posts
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:21 pm to
quote:

The tank is a nuisance, and precautions should be taken to prevent kids from accessing it. It would cease to be a hazardous nuisance when properly secured, or even drained. I'm sorry that you missed the logical follow-on.


The tank in and of itself is not a nuisance. And none of us know what steps were or were not taken to secure this tank. Just because this accident happened does not automatically mean the church is at fault.

quote:

To your last part, get out of the thread if you don't like it. Every motherfricking idiotic thing imaginable is discussed here without details, yet we cannot discuss liability in a death because it's a child, and a church.


The fact this is a church and the victim being a child has nothing to do with it. It does seem though that you really want to blame the church out of your own hostility towards religion in general.

quote:

Look to the "Atlanta toddler in the car thread." Many of these same posters in here that think this is some shameless display on my part were filling that thread with opinions derived from assumption.


And you derided them for giving opinions based on assumptions I'm sure.


Look, the bottom line is that the Church may be responsible for this child's accidental death based on what precautions they had taken to secure the baptismal versus the actions of the people responsible for the child at that time. But just the fact hat the church even had the baptismal is not grounds for their guilt.
Posted by The Third Leg
Idiot Out Wandering Around
Member since May 2014
10059 posts
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:37 pm to
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.
This post was edited on 9/25/14 at 3:56 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram