4 small-town teens held in random attack

I guess he got fed up with Seminary and the Bishop questioning him about his masturbatory habits.

..." A devout Mormon on the verge of becoming a church missionary ...."

I just wonder, if the attacker had never gone to church in his life would the paper had printed " A lifelong athiest..."

Who cares.

Maybe he can serve in the prison ministry.

What a dope.

I'm sure his parents and Bishop are proud.

Birg wrote:

Who cares.

Clearly not you.

Birg wrote:

Maybe he can serve in the prison ministry.
What a dope.
I'm sure his parents and Bishop are proud.

You know they're not. What good does it do to libel them?

Regards,
Pahoran

Libel?

Huh, I guess its starts with the newspaper then. They reported the facts and I just commented.

What, you think it is a positive note to have a person of the LDS faith slit your throat?

Apparently.

It might be time to visit with the Stake President and talk about your issues.

Ploy wrote:

Libel?
Huh, I guess its starts with the newspaper then. They reported the facts and I just commented.

And your comment was:

"I'm sure his parents and Bishop are proud."

What in the newspaper article supported that libel?

Well?

Ploy wrote:

What, you think it is a positive note to have a person of the LDS faith slit your throat?

No.

Ploy wrote:

Apparently.

How is this "apparent" to you? What is the process by which you draw conclusions from what is posted?

Ploy wrote:

It might be time to visit with the Stake President and talk about your issues.

What "issues" would those be?

I can't imagine what the parents of these boys are going through. Next to the relatives of the victims, they are clearly suffering more than anyone; but you, in the plenitude of the charity that is in your heart, accuse them of being "proud."

Any conscience left?

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't imagine what the parents of these boys are going through. Next to the relatives of the victims, they are clearly suffering more than anyone; but you, in the plenitude of the charity that is in your heart, accuse them of being "proud."
Any conscience left?
Regards,
Pahoran

How do we know what kind of people their parents are from what we've heard? And on what basis are we making assumptions that they are decent folk and feel bad? Because they're affiliated with some religion? If that's the case then a lot of good that did everyone. Wonder just how "random" this really was or if they specifically did this for some reason or other that the news has not reported. These perps or at least individuals doing the perpetrating often have some kind of preferences for who or what they go after. I think calling it random might even be giving their consciences a little too much credit.

sarrado wrote:

<quoted text>How do we know what kind of people their parents are from what we've heard? And on what basis are we making assumptions that they are decent folk and feel bad? Because they're affiliated with some religion?

No, actually.

Just because that is the default position. The parents get the benefit of the doubt. Even if they are Mormons (ugh!)

I extend the benefit of the doubt to all eight of the parents, even the two Mormon (ugh!) ones. I have generally found that if we know nothing at all about another person, presuming them to be decent is right far more often than it is wrong.

sarrado wrote:

If that's the case then a lot of good that did everyone. Wonder just how "random" this really was or if they specifically did this for some reason or other that the news has not reported. These perps or at least individuals doing the perpetrating often have some kind of preferences for who or what they go after. I think calling it random might even be giving their consciences a little too much credit.

I've got no idea what, if anything, that means. People rarely do genuinely random things; the four of them got together and planned something. News organisations use the term "random," not in any scientific sense, but simply to denote something like "without apparent reason," or, "we don't know why they chose those victims, or to do it in that place on that day."

I fail to see how it gives anyone any credit to suggest that they are willing to brutally attack and murder someone they just happened to see on the street, as opposed to someone they might have had a grudge against.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran, well said. But to me calling it random may seem to suggest less premeditation or that it was more spur of the moment as opposed to some other discriptive headline I guess. Almost like that particular time they could very well have chose slicing and dicing up some furniture or someones pets but it just so happens that instead they "randomly" opted to brutalize small females who were vulnerable in their beds incidentally. I don't know, maybe I'm just getting a little mixed up here with all of this.