The Spam Thread: Channel Your Need to Spam Here Only

[MicShazam]

For me, It's the principle. When you're a kid, you can't be expected to have learned how to be yet and you can't be held entirely responsible. The idea is that when you reach some, perhaps arbitrary age, you're now responsible and supposed to know how to behave, whether you actually do or not.

I support the idea, but it's hard to say when exactly people should be required to take responsibility for their own behaviour for good.

I'm not saying a horribly annoying little **** wouldn't make it hard to insist on the principle.

[DwnWthVwls]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

If you could do that then I commend you, but I suspect you'd be one in a hundred.

I totally understand what you're saying, and he definitely did "control" himself for the most part. The kid definitely has some issues though.

Kid across the street from me has some anger problems as well. I hear him telling his parents to "Fuck off" and other such nonsense when he's riding his bike in the street. It just seems like a lot more than a kid being a twat kind of scenario.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by MicShazam

For me, It's the principle. When you're a kid, you can't be expected to have learned how to be yet and you can't be held entirely responsible. The idea is that when you reach some, perhaps arbitrary age, you're now responsible and supposed to know how to behave, whether you actually do or not.

I support the idea, but it's hard to say when exactly people should be required to take responsibility for their own behaviour for good.

I'm not saying a horribly annoying little **** wouldn't make it hard to insist on the principle.

That is not an annoying little ****. I might be just intolerant but that kid looks unsaveable. Until the kid got thrown to the ground and started screaming bloody murder I could have bought that he was just misguided, but at that point it was clear that he was never truly out of control, he just didn't give a **** about being in control. At that point his entire modus operandi was ruining someone's life and if he had I can imagine the evil smirk on his face. The kid is scum and if the dude had shot him in the head he would have been a psychopath himself but at least we'd have one less other psychopath.

[MicShazam]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

That is not an annoying little ****. I might be just intolerant but that kid looks unsaveable. Until the kid got thrown to the ground and started screaming bloody murder I could have bought that he was just misguided, but at that point it was clear that he was never truly out of control, he just didn't give a **** about being in control. At that point his entire modus operandi was ruining someone's life and if he had I can imagine the evil smirk on his face. The kid is scum and if the dude had shot him in the head he would have been a psychopath himself but at least we'd have one less other psychopath.

That's where the principle takes over. He will be given the benefit of the doubt until he's legal age. Then he's on his own and deserves to be squashed by the hammer of life if he continues inviting it.

I'd certainly never want to work with troubled youngsters myself, but I have a lot of respect for people who do manage to tap that endless well of patience.

[Lucem Ferre]

Kid wants to start swinging, acting like a big man treat him like one.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by MicShazam

That's where the principle takes over. He will be given the benefit of the doubt until he's legal age. Then he's on his own and deserves to be squashed by the hammer of life if he continues inviting it.

I'd certainly never want to work with troubled youngsters myself, but I have a lot of respect for people who do manage to tap that endless well of patience.

Why would you give him the benefit of the doubt? Is there some reason you saw in him that made you think he had potential or are you just clinging to mindless liberalism that says you should never touch a child under any circumstances because physical discipline against children by parents has been shown to be ineffective?

That kid looked about five years from everyone on Earth, liberal or not, deciding that he was a waste of skin. I'm just being proactive.

[Frownland]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto..._mall_activity

[MicShazam]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Why would you give him the benefit of the doubt? Is there some reason you saw in him that made you think he had potential or are you just clinging to mindless liberalism that says you should never touch a child under any circumstances because physical discipline against children by parents has been shown to be ineffective?

That kid looked about five years from everyone on Earth, liberal or not, deciding that he was a waste of skin. I'm just being proactive.

Who knows why he's acting like that. Maybe he's just a ****stain. Maybe he's mentally ill and needs help. Maybe his dad is sodomizing him every night and he's just acting out his pain. Who knows. He's a kid, so I have to insist on forgiveness. Feel free to piledrive him into the pavement a few years from now, guilt free. But right now, it's the principle thing again. I'm sure you think I'm irrational and maybe you're right. But I believe in showing peole some amount of good will.

[Cuthbert]

The kid would probably batter you anyway Charles.

[Cuthbert]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Kids a little ****, but I can't get behind this guy doing that to him. You treat him like you would an adult, by protecting yourself and calling the cops.

Yeah this.

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Youre a pompous ass.

Youre a pompous ass.

You think youre better than us?