Midwest Lesbians Beat Son With Hammer & Kicked His Groin Until He Suffered Two Strokes

[Silhouette]

No sir, you made the claim that because this lesbian couple abused their children that many homosexual parents do. You said it's because the sex they have is icky or some malarkey like that.

..My argument is that there is no proof for your claim. I don't have to prove non-existents of evidence. The burden is on you.

Actually I think it was me who made that not claim...rather..inference. I mean in logic we use facts in preponderance or screamingly evident in some cases to extrapolate. I've seen you do it. "Christians are all a bunch of bible thumping hypocrites". Quite a broad brush stroke you feel entitled to make..

Whereas with Christians we don't see a majority of them being snake-charming whack nuts..I'm just looking at the constant evidence with lesbians smacking all of us in the face. Two women who have sworn off men so completely that they refuse to do the one thing men and women were made for each other to do without question: have sex...and one can safely assume that at least there is a modicum of a rejection of the male gender there..

Then, one of them targets a five year old boy to be kicked in the groin until he bleeds and has strokes... The groin was the area targeted. Why not just the shin? You see what I'm saying. Reasonable people do. It was a hate crime by a male-hating lesbian..

 

[Inevitable]

Gallup is hardly a valid poll? So you think they are in league in a conspiracy to subvert the truth?

Gallup is not a poll. Subvert the truth? Conspiracy?

I addressed a graph that supposedly represents many years of polls. It is not valid. Link to the graph, show us the questions they asked, tell us who they asked, where, when, how, how many. Polls are invalid, depending on hiw they are conducted.

Well you are the one claiming its invalid the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Inevitable]

Actually I think it was me who made that not claim...rather..inference. I mean in logic we use facts in preponderance or screamingly evident in some cases to extrapolate.

in your logic you don't. All you use is emotion.

Your conclusion isn't logical.

I've seen you do it. "Christians are all a bunch of bible thumping hypocrites". Quite a broad brush stroke you feel entitled to make..

In what post did you see me do this?

Whereas with Christians we don't see a majority of them being snake-charming whack nuts..I'm just looking at the constant evidence with lesbians smacking all of us in the face. Two women who have sworn off men so completely that they refuse to do the one thing men and women were made for each other to do without question: have sex...and one can safely assume that at least there is a modicum of a rejection of the male gender there..

That opinion is based completely on emotion and thus not reasoned logic. Nor does that opinion have anything to do with thus assault.

Then, one of them targets a five year old boy to be kicked in the groin until he bleeds and has strokes... The groin was the area targeted. Why not just the shin? You see what I'm saying. Reasonable people do. It was a hate crime by a male-hating lesbian..

Yes, it just isn't logical. You are pretending to read their mind. Thus is the problem with hate crime legislation. You can't know what somebody is thinking.

You can no more claim that the lesbians best up this child because they hated men than you can claim Andrew Zimmerman killed trayvon Martin because he hated black people.

You ate doing exactly that.

 

[elektra]

Gallup is hardly a valid poll? So you think they are in league in a conspiracy to subvert the truth?

Well you are the one claiming its invalid the burden of proof is on you.

The burden if proof is on me? Sure, if we are playing by Socialist Marxist rules.

I already stated and established why a picture representing many years, of "polls" is not valid. That you reject and ignore this simply shows you argue from a position of ideology, not facts.

 

[Inevitable]

Gallup is hardly a valid poll? So you think they are in league in a conspiracy to subvert the truth?

Well you are the one claiming its invalid the burden of proof is on you.

The burden if proof is on me? Sure, if we are playing by Socialist Marxist rules.

simple logic is socialist Marxism? News to me.

I already stated and established why a picture representing many years, of "polls" is not valid. That you reject and ignore this simply shows you argue from a position of ideology, not facts.

Special pleading. I didn't reject or ignore you. I countered your point.

I see attempts to discredit things you don't agree with. I just don't see logic.

 

[Syriusly]

So you go around wondering what the sexual proclivities of parents are?

You must be real fun at the PTA meetings.

Further, when you pronunce you are homosexual one does not have to question, you are announcing.

So you go around wondering what the sexual proclivities of parents are?

You must be real fun at the PTA meetings.

Further, when you pronunce you are homosexual one does not have to question, you are announcing.

You didn't judge people who announced their sexual preference- you condemned people who were 'abnormal with their sexual proclivities'

People who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.

A rational person does not go around speculating judging persons on what their sexual 'proclivities' may or may not be- but you certainly do.

But that is what you do- fantasizing about other person's 'sexual proclivities' and judging them based upon your fantasies.

 

[Syriusly]

People who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.

So you go around wondering what the sexual proclivities of parents are?

You must be real fun at the PTA meetings.

Or are you only brave enough to speak your idiotic bigoted thoughts anonymously online?

Oh I speak my mind at a PTA meeting- if a homophobic bigot like you were to start telling the parents there that anyone who had sex in a manner you considered to be abnormal could not be expected to act rationally around children I would calmly, and clearly point out that you are a bigot who is trying to tell everyone who can be around children based upon your sexual speculation.

 

[Syriusly]

And why would I give a shit what the Daily Mail says?

Because this OP used it as its source and you are posting in this thread?

The OP doesn't say what you do. Perhaps you can quote the 'Daily Mail' saying that 'eople who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.'

And then give us a rational reason to give a shit what the Daily Mail says. Being cited in an OP isn't a standard of credibility.

You think this homosexual couple acted rationally?

I paraphrased, so?

I think you didn't show us anywhere in the Daily mail that they said this: "people who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.'

And then give me a rational reason to give a shit what the Daily Mail says. As being cited in an OP still isn't a standard of credibility.

Try again.

I know, your agenda is to defend homosexuality, not an ill word can be posted. No matter how sick or twisted the crime they commit, it is all okay with you. But the fact is, according to your links in other threads, children are victims of crimes more often when the father is not present. This crime need not of happened.

You cannot point to a single poster in this thread who has defended the actions of this couple. We have all condemned what these parents did- as we would condemn any parent for child abuse.

It is you and Silhouette who have the clear agenda here- to attack homosexuality.

To you- the important issue is not that a child was abused- it is that you can call the abusers homosexuals.

If the parents were not homosexuals- you would never even mention this horrible case of child abuse.

Your agenda is solely to attack homosexuals- the children who are being abused are merely a tool you use.

ONe more time- these parents are monsters-- who deserve to go to prison for a long time. Because they are child abusers- not because they are homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

[ which is a very sadistic horrific crime against a very defenseless child.

Which is horrible.

And happened 2 months ago.

And since that time dozens of equally sadistic horrific crimes against defenseless children have happened.

You and Silhouette only care to comment on this one specific horrific crime against children- and not the ones that have happened more recently.

Why?

 

[Syriusly]

Gallup is hardly a valid poll? So you think they are in league in a conspiracy to subvert the truth?

Well you are the one claiming its invalid the burden of proof is on you.

The burden if proof is on me? Sure, if we are playing by Socialist Marxist rules..

Elektra: social marxism = anyone who dares disagree with here by presenting facts.

 

[Syriusly]

When heterosexual parents beat their children Silhouette doesn't bat an eye.

Im pretty sure if that heterosexual couple beat their kids with a hammer, something might be mentioned somewhere.
but, you are comparing beating a kid with a belt to beating a kid with a hammer.
Do you have any clue how ignorant you look for that comment.

The fact is that Silhouette will never mention a case of child abuse unless the attacker can be claimed by her to be homosexual.

I have watched her posts for over 2 years and she has never broken this pattern.

 

[Syriusly]

You are looking for a reasonable conclusion in a horrific crime,

No, I'm asking for your reasoning when you conclude homosexuality plays a role in child abuse.

they did not simply "beat up their kid".

Well, what did they do more than that?

You start a debate by first redefining what took place?

So they didn't beat up their child?

Fine, you have your agenda to protect homosexuals even when they are guilty of:

beat one woman's 5-year-old son with a HAMMER, duct-taped his eyes and kicked him in the groin until he bled and suffered two strokes'

What does not follow is how you want to dismiss this as simply "They beat up their kid", there is no debate or discussion with you if you can not even admit to what occurred, which is a very sadistic horrific crime against a very defenseless child.

So they didn't beat up a child? What did they do then?

Did the child need to be kicked in the groin until he bled? I disagree.

Homosexuals have no business raising children, this is an extreme case that proves the point.

What bullshit.

This is a terrible case of child abuse by monsters who in this specific case happen to be homosexuals- look at your post- you don't even care about whether these women are prosecuted- you just want to use this case to attack all homosexuals.

One of these women was the boys biological mother.

Do you advocate the government removing the biological children from their parents- if the parents are determined to be homosexuals?

 

[Skylar]

No sir, you made the claim that because this lesbian couple abused their children that many homosexual parents do. You said it's because the sex they have is icky or some malarkey like that.

..My argument is that there is no proof for your claim. I don't have to prove non-existents of evidence. The burden is on you.

Actually I think it was me who made that not claim...rather..inference. I mean in logic we use facts in preponderance or screamingly evident in some cases to extrapolate. I've seen you do it. "Christians are all a bunch of bible thumping hypocrites". Quite a broad brush stroke you feel entitled to make..

Your imagination isn't a 'preponderance of evidence'. That's one of the many reasons why our law never, ever follows your imagination.

And why your imagination never, ever predicts the the outcome of any law.

Whereas with Christians we don't see a majority of them being snake-charming whack nuts..I'm just looking at the constant evidence with lesbians smacking all of us in the face. Two women who have sworn off men so completely that they refuse to do the one thing men and women were made for each other to do without question: have sex...and one can safely assume that at least there is a modicum of a rejection of the male gender there..

By that 'logic', there's is at least a 'modicum of rejection of the male gender' among straight men. As they don't want to fuck guys either.

Then, one of them targets a five year old boy to be kicked in the groin until he bleeds and has strokes... The groin was the area targeted. Why not just the shin? You see what I'm saying. Reasonable people do. It was a hate crime by a male-hating lesbian..

You're insinuating that if one couples does something monstrous....that anyone who shares their sexual orientation anywhere is also suspect. Even if they've never done anything abusive to any child.

But that's blithering nonsense that even you don't believe. As when your imaginary standards are applied to straights.....you balk.

 

[Syriusly]

and how can that be prevented? by not allowing gay or lesbian couples to have children?
Ok, so you dont let them adopt. How do you handle it when the actually have their own children, are you going to suggest that the state takes them to protect them?

How about thinking of the children instead of yourself, no child would ever choose to be without a mother or father, that is something which you force on them because of your abnormality.

Lots of children would be glad to be without a father- because of how abusive their father was.

Millions of children in America are raised without a father- and most of those children are being raised by heterosexuals.

Those heterosexuals 'force' that decision on children by either never marrying- or by divorcing.

So of course- you blame homosexuals for the children being raised without a father in their lives.

 

[Syriusly]

Be nice if one day they could be seen as they really are instead of the archaic image based on fear and lack of understanding.
but I think the real issue is that men cant stand the fact that some women really have no interest in them as a sexual partner.
I mean, I get hugs from my female friend, but thats as far as it goes, and I would not think of trying to push it farther.
I guess according to some, Im an ignorant anti family idiot.

In the context of this thread, where two homosexual woman kicked in the balls of a 5 year old boy causing him to have 2 strokes, it shows you to be an extreme mental case that approves of sadistic abuse.

He has never once posted an approval of the abuse of this child.

No one has.

We have pointed out that your attacks on all homosexuals based upon the actions of these two monsters are just you using the tragedy of this abuse as a tool to attack homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

do tell, what abnormality do I suffer from?

have you not presented yourself as a homosexual who desires to have children?

You are defending homosexuality in a thread about the sadistic abuse perpetrated by two homosexual woman (would you honestly leave your children with these two homosexuals?)..

You

If these two parents were Jews- would he be defending Judaism by pointing out that two Jewish parents abusing a child does not mean that Jews should not be allowed to be parents?

You are indeed no different than those who post the threads pointing out child abuse by parents who happen to be Jews or black or Mormons or Mexican or Gay- just to label the entire group as something based upon the horrible child abuse by specific parents.

You are not different than an anti-semite who says Jews shouldn't be allowed to teach children.

 

[Syriusly]

Be nice if one day they could be seen as they really are instead of the archaic image based on fear and lack of understanding.
Where did I approve of that? oh, you mean because I wont use one instance of something to condemn the whole entire population of lesbians?
Again, your lack of understanding and knowledge of humans in general is just beyond most peoples ability to grasp.
by your standards, nobody should have kids, not gays, or straights. How about single parents, are they ok?

, how come you keep focusing on Lesbians? .

Indeed- why do you keep focusing on all Lesbians?

 

[Syriusly]

It is clear that you suffer from a very limited intellectual capacity.

(wait for it, claims of an IQ over 150 on the way)

Says the guy who sees nothing wrong in this sad tragic story.

Says the guy who sees nothing wrong when heterosexuals abuse children.

 

[Syriusly]

The OP doesn't say what you do. Perhaps you can quote the 'Daily Mail' saying that 'eople who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.'

And then give us a rational reason to give a shit what the Daily Mail says. Being cited in an OP isn't a standard of credibility.

You think this homosexual couple acted rationally?

I paraphrased, so?

I think you didn't show us anywhere in the Daily mail that they said this: "people who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.'

And then give me a rational reason to give a shit what the Daily Mail says. As being cited in an OP still isn't a standard of credibility.

Try again.

I know, your agenda is to defend homosexuality, not an ill word can be posted. No matter how sick or twisted the crime they commit, it is all okay with you. But the fact is, according to your links in other threads, children are victims of crimes more often when the father is not present. This crime need not of happened.

The only thing you 'know' is that you can't quote anyone but yourself making this claim:

People who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.

Whenever I ask you to show me any credible source backing this claim......you give me excuses why you can't. And the reason why is simple: you're making this shit up as you go along.

The Opening Poster had to lie repeatedly to try and support her argument. You've just made shit up. If your arguments had merit, you wouldn't have needed to do either.

I make this up? Homosexuals are abnormal, that is made up? That homosexuals will adopt and or have children made for them is certainly an abnormal family. .

Anyone who adopts is abnormal.

Anyone who wants an adoptive family is abnormal.

Lucky we don't prevent adoptions just because adoptive parents are abnormal.

 

[Skylar]

You think this homosexual couple acted rationally?

I paraphrased, so?

I think you didn't show us anywhere in the Daily mail that they said this: "people who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.'

And then give me a rational reason to give a shit what the Daily Mail says. As being cited in an OP still isn't a standard of credibility.

Try again.

I know, your agenda is to defend homosexuality, not an ill word can be posted. No matter how sick or twisted the crime they commit, it is all okay with you. But the fact is, according to your links in other threads, children are victims of crimes more often when the father is not present. This crime need not of happened.

The only thing you 'know' is that you can't quote anyone but yourself making this claim:

People who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.

Whenever I ask you to show me any credible source backing this claim......you give me excuses why you can't. And the reason why is simple: you're making this shit up as you go along.

The Opening Poster had to lie repeatedly to try and support her argument. You've just made shit up. If your arguments had merit, you wouldn't have needed to do either.

I make this up? Homosexuals are abnormal, that is made up? That homosexuals will adopt and or have children made for them is certainly an abnormal family. .

Anyone who adopts is abnormal.

Anyone who wants an adoptive family is abnormal.

Lucky we don't prevent adoptions just because adoptive parents are abnormal.

And what about all those left handed freaks? Anyone who is taller or shorter than average? Anyone with blue eyes?

By the standards of 'normal' being offered, none would fit the bill.