Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 72242

There is very low potential of helping a child during the 6 hours they are in a school, when the child had to go back into 18 hours of parents that set a very low lifestyle example.

A better way to deal with this situation is to get rid of guilty parents. America needs to have an Absolute Paternity Law that say parents must provide for their children. Failure to provide for their children (as proved by asking for government assistance) should be punishable by death using the three strikes and you are out concept.

Clirus, CF 69 Comments [4/15/2010 4:01:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 122
Submitted By: EnemyPartyII
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3


lol...

I bet the same genius that came up with this was/is against healthcare reform because it's tyranny/socialism/communism/facism.

4/15/2010 4:03:57 AM

aaa

I know! Rather than punish parents for not being prepared or willing to care for the children they create, why not teach them how to prevent getting pregnant?

Yes, yes, there's abstinence. But safe sex, and parenting classes, might be a bit more useful there.

4/15/2010 4:04:47 AM

Meh

This is certainly idiotic, but how is this religious idiocy? (other than the source, obviously)

4/15/2010 4:10:07 AM

LDM

Read that thread. Clirus is a sad, sad women who hates everyone. She wants war protesters in jail too.

4/15/2010 4:22:59 AM



"Low potential of helping"? "Very low lifestyle example"?

Go learn English, you ignorant shitstain.

4/15/2010 4:27:04 AM

Tolpuddle Martyr

So, if the kids parents are poor you kill the parents? And then all the orphans you've just created would be rich, right?

[size=35]Wrong![/size]

4/15/2010 4:39:18 AM

Nowonmai

When you pull you head out of your ass, and breathe some real air, I think it will be a shock to your system.

Killing off poor parents will not make the kids better off, you fucking moron!

4/15/2010 4:44:09 AM

Mister Spak

Does this apply to fundies who oppose, say, health care for children? Or WIC? Or free school lunches?

4/15/2010 4:48:50 AM

Mudak

Since when is the death penalty something that comes up in three-strikes laws?

I'm assuming you're opposed to healthcare reform, in favor of unrestrained free market excesses, and opposed to abortion, too, right?

4/15/2010 5:51:36 AM

Berny

Is this stupid fucker advocating the execution of the poor in America?
Yeah, that'll work...

4/15/2010 6:15:12 AM

Misty

...Okay and... When the parents are dead, what about the kid?

4/15/2010 6:17:15 AM

GigaGuess

I was curious as to what she considered "guilty" parents, holding hope that this was some austere way of dealing with child beaters or negligent parents. I sorely wish I hadn't. She doesn't care about how well or poorly the children are cared for, she just wants to kill off people whose views differ from hers.

4/15/2010 6:22:33 AM

Xotan

Orphanologism?

4/15/2010 6:42:40 AM

campbunny

You can tell from passages like "very low potential of helping" and "very low lifestyle example" that this is a person who has seen the style of writing of educated people, and is trying to imitate it herself, but fails. Hee hee hee.

4/15/2010 6:43:31 AM

WWWWolf

> Failure to provide for their children (as proved by asking for government assistance) should be punishable by death using the three strikes and you are out concept.

Sounds fun. What are you going to do to the children whose parents you're going to execute? Surely you're not suggesting the government is going to take care of them, what with your hatred of government assistance?

4/15/2010 6:52:36 AM

Anon-e-moose

So you're admitting, somewhat obtusely Clirus, that you didn't like school. I'm prepared to admit there were certain aspects of school that I didn't like, but I had to go, and I just made the best of it.

Education is compulsory, Kitzmiller vs. Dover destroyed teaching 'Creationism' there, thus is illegal, therefore Evolution is taught. As well as Sex Ed. Too bad, so sad.

Deal with it.

4/15/2010 6:57:45 AM



Originally posted by Tolpuddle Martyr

So, if the kids parents are poor you kill the parents? And then all the orphans you've just created would be rich, right?

Wrong!

Clirus seems to be the type of person that would think capital punishment makes a good preventative measure. According to such a persion, after the first couple of well-publicized executions, no one would break this law again. And there ya go, only a few orphans whose welfare was sacrificed for the good of the many.

Good of the many? Hey, wait a minuteā€¦?

4/15/2010 7:06:21 AM



And failing to provide for your children suddenly results in the children having no parents at all, thus growing up in foster homes and ending up with a higher chance of becoming a drug addict. Way to go.

4/15/2010 7:16:48 AM

Karlsbad

It is mildly reassuring that the other posters in the original thread proceeded to tear strips off her argument, including one pronouncing that she fails at the Bible and another pointing out that her statements contradict a belief in Jesus' teachings to turn the other cheek and love thy enemy.

4/15/2010 7:18:54 AM

TGRwulf

Or you know, we could just make sure people are more well informed about contraceptives...

4/15/2010 7:22:50 AM

oop

Advocating the death penalty?

Yup, that's fundie.

4/15/2010 7:25:45 AM

Dan Onymous

What a fucking moron. Who would ask for state help knowing that it meant the death penalty? Surely all you're arguing for is a rise in violent crime when people steal to feed their kids instead.

4/15/2010 7:35:33 AM

Street Sharks

Wow she sounds so Christian. I mean killing the poor is exactly what Jesus preached about. What could be more beneficial to poor kids than the deaths of their parents?

4/15/2010 7:57:56 AM

Anonymous

Why is everything have to be punishable by death with these people?

4/15/2010 8:29:24 AM

GodotIsWaiting4U

So you're going to improve their lives by killing their parents. Three times. And you're going to kill them for asking for help.

4/15/2010 9:15:33 AM
1 2 3