Teen get's arrested for sarcast violent joke and may go to prison for 8 years.

technoguyx

16Skittles wrote:
There must be another factor, because just plain gun ownership is not the problem.

Must be a psychological thing, caused by the environment (school bullying) and the egocentric notion that “everybody wins”, which though it's fairly common here in Chile too, I've seen it mentioned a lot when describing the USA in particular - and it's the one country where school shootings happen the most. The access to firearms and the view on them that American society seems to have on them, just provides a way to let out the anger. I wouldn't know how living in the US is, though.

LeDerpy123

maxdoss wrote:
LeDerpy123 wrote:
Why does it seem that I am the only person extremely offended by this?
You shouldn't be offended. Living in Connecticut doesn't mean you should be more offended than anybody else. It's rare for school shootings and he didn't own any firearms. He also responded with lol and jk. It was obviously sarcasm.

But it wasn't with good intentions. And the only reason I said that is because everyone here thinks he did nothing wrong. It had nothing to do with the Connecticut thing.

banana500

ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
banana500 wrote:
ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
those who could care less.
Another note, fix your grammar, will you? It's “couldn't care less”, not “could care less”.
Grammar Nazi, huh? Well you made a mistake, two in fact. It's "couldn't care less," and "could care less." Notice the comma and period before the quote?
And it's a matter of perspective:
Is there a limit to how much a person can care, or is there no limit?
Could care less: There's always a lower state of care.
Couldn't care less: At the bare minimum of care.

When you “could” care less, it means you care about it.
When you “couldn't” care less, it means you absolutely do not care.

Also, you calling me a Grammar Nazi and proceeding to correct me on my own grammatical mistake immediately entitles you as a hypocrite.

Honestly you are the most annoying person I have seen so far on these forums.

StardustGogeta

I believe he went over the line, and should be punished. However, he should not be put in jail. It would ruin his life, all because a woman caught him joking on a multiplayer game over the Internet. He did nothing that harmed anyone else, and has the right to freedom of speech.

Also, you can be offended no matter where you live, whether you are in Canada, America, or somewhere else. He knows not to do this anymore, and other children can be taught about this as evidence that what you say on the Internet can come back to bite you. Saying “lol” and “jk” does not make this right, but I truly believe jail time is wrong. He did not have any reference to real school shootings, and proximity to a school means nothing. If sarcasm deserves jail time, then calling the boy “insane” does too.

Lastly, do this is a professional manner. Do not use excessive capitalization, do not correct or criticize others besides pointing out incorrect facts, and do not use direct insults of any kind.

Last edited by StardustGogeta (July 2, 2013 23:11:07)

zubblewu

banana500 wrote:
Honestly you are the most annoying person I have seen so far on these forums.

pls don't b rude

banana500

zubblewu wrote:
banana500 wrote:
Honestly you are the most annoying person I have seen so far on these forums.
pls don't b rude

Why shouldn't I?

Freedom of speech, remember?

ImagineIt

ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
maxdoss wrote:
LeDerpy123 wrote:
I live in Connecticut, so I feel it a whole lot more than the rest of the country, or the world for that matter.
You live in the state where the Newton shooting happened. Big deal. In some Middle Eastern and African countries, shootings like that happen every day. There are billions of people who feel it a lot more than you.
Big deal? 18 20 U.S. children died! Those children had bright futures and loving families! Who are you to be anti-sympathetic?! I'm sure you would feel the same way if your sibling was one of them.

Yes, 20 US children died, but way more die in the places that he mentioned. It's not fair for him to say he feels it more than anyone in the WORLD at all. Why does nobody care about the children living in places like that?

banana500

ImagineIt wrote:
ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
maxdoss wrote:
LeDerpy123 wrote:
I live in Connecticut, so I feel it a whole lot more than the rest of the country, or the world for that matter.
You live in the state where the Newton shooting happened. Big deal. In some Middle Eastern and African countries, shootings like that happen every day. There are billions of people who feel it a lot more than you.
Big deal? 18 20 U.S. children died! Those children had bright futures and loving families! Who are you to be anti-sympathetic?! I'm sure you would feel the same way if your sibling was one of them.

Yes, 20 US children died, but way more die in the places that he mentioned. It's not fair for him to say he feels it more than anyone in the WORLD at all. Why does nobody care about the children living in places like that?

Because people are jerks.

I agree with you. Why should we have to care solely for the welfare of our own country? Why not others'?

ProdigyZeta7

banana500 wrote:
zubblewu wrote:
banana500 wrote:
Honestly you are the most annoying person I have seen so far on these forums.
pls don't b rude
Why shouldn't I?
Freedom of speech, remember?

There's limits to how far you can go with freedom. I stay within that boundary.

Last edited by ProdigyZeta7 (July 3, 2013 00:07:11)

banana500

ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
banana500 wrote:
zubblewu wrote:
banana500 wrote:
Honestly you are the most annoying person I have seen so far on these forums.
pls don't b rude
Why shouldn't I?

Freedom of speech, remember?
There's limits to how far you can go with freedom. I stay within that boundary.

Hah. Freedom is limits. Doublethink strikes again. >.>

zubblewu

ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
banana500 wrote:
zubblewu wrote:
banana500 wrote:
Honestly you are the most annoying person I have seen so far on these forums.
pls don't b rude
Why shouldn't I?

Freedom of speech, remember?
There's limits to how far you can go with freedom. I stay within that boundary.

if there are limits it isn't freedom

veggieman001

ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
Notice the comma and period before the quote?

(It actually depends on what country's grammar rules you're going off {US usually requires inside, UK follows logic}, and what style guide you're using. Both are acceptable under different ones, and I myself actually prefer their going outside.)

veggieman001

ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
banana500 wrote:
zubblewu wrote:
banana500 wrote:
Honestly you are the most annoying person I have seen so far on these forums.
pls don't b rude
Why shouldn't I?

Freedom of speech, remember?
There's limits to how far you can go with freedom. I stay within that boundary.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There may be no law abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech in the United States. Sure, LoL could terminate his account, but it doesn't make sense to persecute him.

mitchboy

StardustGogeta wrote:
I believe he went over the line, and should be punished. However, he should not be put in jail. It would ruin his life, all because a woman caught him joking on a multiplayer game over the Internet. He did nothing that harmed anyone else, and has the right to freedom of speech.

Also, you can be offended no matter where you live, whether you are in Canada, America, or somewhere else. He knows not to do this anymore, and other children can be taught about this as evidence that what you say on the Internet can come back to bite you. Saying “lol” and “jk” does not make this right, but I truly believe jail time is wrong. He did not have any reference to real school shootings, and proximity to a school means nothing. If sarcasm deserves jail time, then calling the boy “insane” does too.

Lastly, do this is a professional manner. Do not use excessive capitalization, do not correct or criticize others besides pointing out incorrect facts, and do not use direct insults of any kind.

+1000

ImagineIt

veggieman001 wrote:
ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
Notice the comma and period before the quote?
{US usually requires inside, UK follows logic}

Last edited by ImagineIt (July 2, 2013 23:28:57)

ProdigyZeta7

veggieman001 wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

+1

OrcaCat

This is stupid.

Seriously, that was taken way out of context and violats the first amendment.

Last edited by OrcaCat (July 2, 2013 23:30:42)

veggieman001

ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
+1

Er… I said that to counter what you said, that freedom has boundaries. This post contradicts your previous one…

ProdigyZeta7

veggieman001 wrote:
ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
+1
Er… I said that to counter what you said, that freedom has boundaries. This post contradicts your previous one…

I agree to disagree with myself. Freedom without limits is chaos. Freedom with limits is not freedom at all.

…What is freedom?

FirstSkyler1

ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
+1
Er… I said that to counter what you said, that freedom has boundaries. This post contradicts your previous one…
I agree to disagree with myself. Freedom without limits is chaos. Freedom with limits is not freedom at all.

…What is freedom?

Since the defintion of “freedom” is “The condition of being free of restraints”, freedom is freedom without limits.
EDIT: Also, I don't want to end up in this debate. I'm just stating the defintion of freedom.

Last edited by FirstSkyler1 (July 2, 2013 23:51:45)

Discuss Scratch