Religion

okasha

(11,573 posts)

41. "Conceptual" has four syllables.

Reply to edhopper (Reply #39)

Thu Sep 11, 2014, 10:04 AM

Sep 2014

That's two more than he can probably handle.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should a 14-Year-Old Pennsylvania Boy Be Punished for Supposed Desecration of a Statue of Jesus? [View all] rug Sep 2014 OP

that's bullshit elehhhhna Sep 2014 #1

an Allah statue? MisterP Sep 2014 #34

LOL. nt littlemissmartypants Sep 2014 #37

Since the statute was not physically mistreated, charges should be dismissed like right now. Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #2

That;s the best argument. rug Sep 2014 #4

I see. A prosecutor will have a chuckle and tell the charging cop to get a life. Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #5

No. Not even for public nuisance. LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #3

I agree. Big deal. Kids should be allowed to do things that are not cool without everybody... BlueJazz Sep 2014 #12

Does Not Seem To Meet The Definition In The Statute, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #6

Beat you to it, and without the 'tude. Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #8

There are two elements to that misdemeanor. rug Sep 2014 #10

Since The Act Does Not Meet The Definition Of 'Desecrate', Sir, Any Charge Must Fail The Magistrate Sep 2014 #15

Yes, it must meet the complete definition, not simply a part of of it. rug Sep 2014 #17

Did the little idiot actually damage the statue? okasha Sep 2014 #7

Hmmm, the article doesn't mention any residue. rug Sep 2014 #13

falls under 14 year old boys do stupid shit Skittles Sep 2014 #9

Kick his ass, Skittles! rug Sep 2014 #11

I WILL KICK HIS FAUX-BLOWN ASS Skittles Sep 2014 #14

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT! rug Sep 2014 #16

I noticed you said these are hate crimes. They are not. Hate crimes relate to people, not statues. Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #18

This statute directly relates to people. rug Sep 2014 #19

The FBI has a definition that concentrates on motive as the basis of a hate crime... Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #22

Research the legislative history of this Pennsylvania statute. It is a hate crime. rug Sep 2014 #25

Does Jesus hate oral sex? ZombieHorde Sep 2014 #23

If he stuck a dildo in the statue's mouth, thus damaging it, do you think it would be a hate crime? rug Sep 2014 #29

The second one looks like a hate crime, I don't know about the others. ZombieHorde Sep 2014 #30

The organization in the story, though religious, is not a church. rug Sep 2014 #31

Oops, I thought it was a church, ZombieHorde Sep 2014 #49

Those are good points. rug Sep 2014 #50

It sounds like we're all speaking the same language here. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #53

I replied below. I think we've already met and now are walking past each other. rug Sep 2014 #57

I see no correlation, because those are all damaged private property. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #40

Is Ronald McDonald a protected class under the law? rug Sep 2014 #44

No, I explained quite clearly. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #47

Actually, religions, as are gender, race and nationality, are protected classes under the law. rug Sep 2014 #48

Again, that's not what I conveyed. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #51

This is exactly what I've been saying. rug Sep 2014 #56

I felt 'threat' was the 'least bad' condition of the group. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #60

OK, I've got to go to my daughter's field hockey game. rug Sep 2014 #62

No worries, have a great game. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #63

If the statue sustained no damage, there should be no charges. Arkansas Granny Sep 2014 #20

Agree wholeheartedly. Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #27

This is a lot like putting a noose exboyfil Sep 2014 #21

I'm not exactly sure why this bothers people. ZombieHorde Sep 2014 #24

Insane. He's a kid - TBF Sep 2014 #26

Good idea. Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #28

Absolutely... brooklynite Sep 2014 #32

Let his parents handle this. If I were them, I'd have the photo No Vested Interest Sep 2014 #33

I'd say it's void for vagueness. Manifestor_of_Light Sep 2014 #35

Punished by his parents, yes, but this doesn't seem to break the law. cbayer Sep 2014 #36

I 100 percent agree yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #54

NO! But Jesus should be punished for leading him astray. littlemissmartypants Sep 2014 #38

The kid should just say edhopper Sep 2014 #39

"Conceptual" has four syllables. okasha Sep 2014 #41

And we know he's unintelligent how, exactly? Goblinmonger Sep 2014 #42

No evidence kid's an artist. okasha Sep 2014 #45

"Stop pretending Art is hard" AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #52

heh, evidence. EvilAL Sep 2014 #68

Lol n/t Gelliebeans Sep 2014 #65

Lol! nt No Vested Interest Sep 2014 #46

Punished? Yes, but by his parents. MineralMan Sep 2014 #43

Ding ding ding! yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #55

Prank by a 14 year old? No physical damage done to the statue? Doesn't seem one for a court. pinto Sep 2014 #58

No. It's a statue and a living Jesus wouldn't have asked for that kind of Cleita Sep 2014 #59

under the statute, he appears to be guilty. but the real question is... unblock Sep 2014 #61

Good questions. rug Sep 2014 #66

Nope abelenkpe Sep 2014 #64

Nasty idiotic behaviour but not a crime LeftishBrit Sep 2014 #67