Abbott ‘has the blood of a child on his hands,’ a congresswoman said. ‘No good person would do this,’ said Mexico President López Obrador.
Abbott ‘has the blood of a child on his hands,’ a congresswoman said. ‘No good person would do this,’ said Mexico President López Obrador.
deleted by creator
I would be very surprised if Abbott did even that. Or anyone who voted for him, honestly. If they say it’s unfortunate they acknowledge it was an unintended outcome of putting those buoys and razor wire in there. Meaning, it’s an outcome of something they did. They’ll just say, “well they shouldn’t have been there” and move on to the next person to hate.
Removed by mod
Criminals get trials.
Dehumanized victims get drowned.
Removed by mod
This is a very inhuman response.
I think you need to think about the fact that you posted this comment on a post about the death of a child. Take a few steps back and breathe.
But would you agree that the severity of the punishment should fit the crime?
Removed by mod
So does an illegal border crossing seem to be a crime on the same level as the death penalty is a punishment?
So then you think a dead kid is an acceptable punishment to trying to enter the US? A kid that had no say whatsoever in being there? The kid wasn’t a criminal they were a victim. Period.
Removed by mod
He probably does and they’re probably like this ad well.
He didn’t say anything factually wrong. Neither did you in the first sentence, but then you went for a personal attack for no reason.
People claim Lemmy is better because downvotes mean nothing, but that also encourages this shitty behavior.
Someone implying a person should die without trial for violating border laws in peacetime is what encourages this kind of behavior.
No one is owed civility.
Correct, but please mind rule 1. We don’t owe you access to commenting in this community.
The irony of this comment in response to me calling someone a monster for implying a child deserved to die in a trap because they were in violation of civil tort is not lost on me.
The proper way to deal with someone you dissagree with is, downvote, respond without a personal attack (doesn’t help your point in any way) and block if you really hate them.
This has nothing to do with the content in the discussion. We want this place to be a forum for discussion where everyone is treated with respect, this doesn’t work if we let people who we agree with do whatever they want.
Heard that. Imma bow out of this thread.
I wish you a fruitful future of civil disagreement with people who think it appropriate that violators of civil tort be murdered without trial.
Why the fuck not?
Not replying is always an option.
That’s a very valid point, everyone could just not reply to monstrous statements.
I wonder what would happen if people who either want to get a rush from transgression or genuinely hold hideous views were never chastised?
Imagine if the judge reading a list of charges on you followed up each one with “you dumb fuck”.
What you’re saying makes no sense.
All I said is keep personal insults to yourself. You know nothing about the people you communicate with on Lemmy. You have zero insight into their life, their experiences, their education or anything that would give you the right to insult them personally.
Just state your opinion and stfu. Full stop. If you’re unable to keep personal insults to yourself, don’t comment. It’s very simple.
“Waaaa don’t respond to me I don’t like discussion I just want to defend people that applaud the death of a child in peace! Also, despite the fact that we’re discussing child murder, please everyone understand that being mean on the Internet is worse.”
Judges do that kind of thing all the time. They literally comment on the proceedings and people in the vernacular in addition to using their position of power to influence the outcome.
I know enough about the people writing stuff on the internet to break the usual social rules of decorum: some of them say vile, reprehensible, hateful, inhuman drivel and that is enough to insult them.
What are you really saying here? Are you truly suggesting that when someone implies “hey, this little kids tragic death is acceptable because they were in violation of a law” it’s wrong to tell them that they’re a monster?
How is the literal child a criminal when they had zero say in anything that happened to them? What’s wrong with you people? Honestly? A child died needlessly, someone calls them a criminal and says they deserved it, and your entire contribution is to tell people not to be mean to the guy calling a dead kid a criminal and saying they deserved to be punished? How did you get so utterly disconnected from any form of empathy or even just rationality?
If you have some sort of mental processing issue which precludes your ability to understand what context is, you’re excused somewhat.
This was someone’s kid, just like you. If nobody points out how horrible these sentiments are, where will we end up? “They were a criminal” isn’t relevant to what sounds like an excuse for justifying their death.
I edited this to be less vitriolic, I originally asked you to choke on a book, but let’s try the civil route.
You just can’t make a comment without personal attack, can you?
Please give me context in which judge hands out sentence for even the most vicious of crimes and follows it up with personal attacks.
I understand online forum isn’t a court room, but there’s zero reason for insults in either case.
Sure I can. See?
Illegal immigration is a civil crime.
Not to diminish your point (in fact, quite the opposite), but illegal immigration is a civil tort.
Fair enough. Accuracy on these things is important.