Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think the purpose of the reward is to tempt someone who is involved into turning on their accomplices which isnt likely to happen without such a sweet tempter
Personally tho I’d have offered it as £1 million for information leading to a conviction IF she is recovered alive and half a million or £250,000 if it leads to a conviction if she isnt still alive to try and tempt someone into killing her to protect themselves and THEN grassing on their accomplices perhaps even with some offer of waived or reduced sentencing in such an instance as the only really important thing here is getting the girl back safely
Obviously if its the parents themselves who arranged it or have killed the girl tho I dont think even a reward would be of any use
:?
That link doesnt work anymore tho BTW SAB
But you posted another one so it WASNT your “last post on here” was it haha :P
Actually waspy most of the groups you listed are ones that predominantly dont vote most of the time anyway due to their attitude and apathy which is often the reason they are in those sub groupings anyway
The majority that DO vote for and try to implement the left wing racist nonsense are far more likely to be middle class and live in a predominantly white are, vote left wing and have been through a decent amount of the academic structure usually to degree level or above, they croon on about multiculturalism but dont want to actually experience it themselves, they just think the oinky peasants ought to
They tell people they should be more tolerant of people with radically different cultures but are overtly critical of people who are part of their OWN culture but just have differing views and lifestyles to themselves but completely miss the hypocrisy in that
When two cultures dont mix neither is to blame as niether WANTS to mix en masse, if anything else were the case we wouldnt HAVE any different and static cultures to begin with as they would have eroded and diluted each other over eons
The ONLY reason we have cultures that have remained unchanged for hundred or thousands of years IS because they are inherently racist to begin with and maintain their culture through racism in a subtle form
Infact its quite ironically funny that the multiculturalists will only ever cause the total and utter eradication of their own culture and miss the fact that the cute little cultures they get orgasmic about and tell others to not be racist towards only exist in the first place because of that cultures inherrent racism and resistance TO multiculturalism in the first place to avoid their culture being diluted and perverted by the inclusion of other cultures traits, they also choose quite conveniently to be unable to see the not so subtle racism each and every one of those cutesy cultures shows regularly but constantly whinge about anything they perceive to be racism within their own culture
but if they were actually applying their own idealogy in anything less than a spoonfed brainwashed manner they would allow racism EQUALLY in all cultures their own included, that way there would still be all the other cultures AND ours around to be appreciated in years to come BECAUSE of racism and segregation
Well, until the social war eventually reaches its peak and becomes an actual overt war at least, then it will simply come down to who has the greatest desire to perpetuate their values and way of life and who is prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure that, which is unlikely to be british culture as it stands at the moment
I doubt its defiance for the majority, just not being that bothered, stupidly assuming bad things happen to “other peoples kids” or just not knowing a better way to look after their kids because its how their parents did it and how everyone else around them seemingly does too
“defiance” with your own safety fairy snuff, be as reckless as you like. Being reckless with your kids safety when ever so coincidentally its ALSO the easiest and laziest way to be a parent (what a coincidence that is eh? lol) nah, its pathetic
I am sure that if the law said that whatever happened to your kids when not supervised was then done to the adults people would magically be far more careful with their kids safety, but when its only the kids who are going to suffer that seems to be fine lol, some standard of parenting THAT is haha
And yet again you sidestepped saying what mass of “life experience” 0-6 year olds are likely to accrue by hanging around and possibly dying on street corners unsupervised, or how kids too young to have any decent road sense being run over are gaining in their quality of life
Sorry and all that, but it still seems a very vaccuous arguement to defend indefensible lazy non consideration for a childs safety especially in light of how many kids of ages under 10 are attacked, killed, disfigured for life or are run over as well as how many of that age group are the ones doing those things (who coincidentally will also be part of the group allowed to wander)
As for stating an interpretation of what your words imply, I already pointed out its a discussion board just incase you hadnt noticed, you ARE actually allowed to comment and correct if an interpretation isnt acurate you know…….
Or you could even try saying what you actually mean instead
Either is fine
Ahh, you missed a distinct possibility tho pats (nice ass btw :wink: )
Were brainwashed in our society to pander to any whinging whiney sad case even when common sense suggests they actually deserve berating for their stupity or where they already knew better to begin with but chose quite blatantly the course of action that brought them to their whingey whining
But, that offsets a hell of a lot of objectivity in the baa baa sheepy majority
The possibility that every either seems to be missing or just doesnt want to be the first person to vocalise is the fact that its quite possible the parents are to blame or are involved, either to cover up something else or as a byproduct of something they have done, infact they could even have sold their daughter into the sex industry for all we know
We are too blinded by outdated and groundless stereotypes that no matter how many “rare anomalies” we see in the news still assert themselves as a primary perspective which then makes the rarer or harder to stomach possibilities the ones that are avoided which in itself helps them to occur more frequently by the very virtue of people working to avoid it being a forerunner in their thought processes and theories
Infact some of the other things people have commented on like the seemingly total lack of concern about leaving their kids, the less than expected levels of upset and even the uncle seeming to be quite smiley and upbeat when interviewed could be signs that theres a much darker truth here than being tossed around, and as its not uncommon for paedophillia to encompass entire families over several generations nothing can be ruled out at this point really
“And when exactly did I say ‘I turned out okay so what’s the harm’?”
You said…
“Maybe I was lucky that nothing happened to me, but nothing happened to a lot of other people as well. Many of my friends have grown up to be responsible adults with responsible jobs and some are even responsible parents so that kind of ruins your theory of kids growing up to be idiotic cos of their childhoods”
As it was in response to a view stating that its irresponsible poor parenting to do such things then what you wrote IS implying that it obviously does no harm and doesnt put a child in any unnecessary risk as a result as you know SOOOOO many people who didnt get killed or hurt in any way, it also wouldnt be ruining my theory if you werent trying to imply that as the two outcomes stated were that either they go on to apply equally irresponsible methods to parenting OR do it properly which would also imply that the method criticised isnt right otherwise they would have merely copied it wouldnt they?
As for the kids roaming the streets I dont quite see the relevance to be honest, are you trying to say that because only a percentage (and a rapidly increasing one btw) of them get killed, mugged, beaten or abused that its not got any connection to a link between any of those things happening AND kids being allowed to wander?
Would you care to make a comparison to the percentage of kids who ARENT allowed out that get attacked, robbed, killed, abused etc etc etc to see if the two percentages are pretty much identical?
Because thats the only way that letting kids out could be NOT classed as crappy irresponsible parenting really, if there was no difference in the numbers that undergo such things between the two groups, hardly like really is it?
And lets face it, being mugged, beaten, abused or killed while you are lets say under six is hardly a “cant be missed” aspect of life experience either is it? More like something where most peoples lives would turn out much better due to NOT experiencing them really rather than being enriched BY them wouldnt you say?
So yeah, I think its a good thing to try and stop a child having to experience really and dont see putting a young child into any situation where they are highly likely to have to endure such things as responsible and never will
It might be acceptable parenting on some sink estates and inner city areas, but no matter how many people practice anything in life pure numbers alone doesnt make it right nor something that should be acceptable purely by weight of participants, if that were the case then paedophillia would actually be socially acceptable based on how many people worldwide do it, and piss poor parenting despite also being a very popular pastime is no more pallateable as far as I’m concerned and can do a child as much if not more harm as well as often passing that legacy on to that childs children due to the apathetic parenting method being the only one they know and therefore the same one they often use with their kids BECAUASE they were bought up that way and therefore cant see the harm it does UNTIL some “harm” befalls their kids
Which then circles back to my initial point, because thats where society starts crying “awww poor dear, they must be heartbroken already, its not nice to point out what crap parents they were”
The problem there tho is it gives the impression it WASNT their fault, that they werent to blame which inturn perpetuates the indirect child abuse
Oh yeah, duh @ me
“if as you say that what I said was irrelevant then why are you bothering”, well firstly if you check back it was your own references to how things USED to be that I stated as being irrelevant NOW because unless someone goes back in time using a time machine the moment they have a child and stay in the past until that child reaches adulthood then how things were IS totally irrelevant to them raising a child TODAY
Secondly, its a thread on a DISCUSSION board, so as for the why I would have thought it was pretty bloody obvious really, its kind of the point of logging into the place really
Well seeing as you have referred to people quite clearly stating that kids of 4 shouldnt have EVER been let out of their sight as being detrimental to their life experience and development (the ages being discussed here has been quite adequately mentioned many many times btw) I dont see how its out of context in the slightest really and most certainly ISNT “common sense” to anyone except an idiot to let kids of that age group or even older kids wander free
Secondly, the prostitution analogy refers to you claims of “I turned out ok so whats the harm” and shows that the end isnt any proof of the route being either wise nore adviseable
It wasnt exactly a cryptic link really so I am a bit surprised you chose to choose to act as tho you couldnt see it really, ho hum
