Toddler forced into washing machine and killed.

I agree it's a shame. But the kid wasn't necessarily perfect and it's not accurate to make him out to be some kind of angel, especially considering he threw some other kid's drawing down the toilet.

I couldn't neg you, I've run out.
Remind me tomorrow?

I agree it's a shame. But the kid wasn't necessarily perfect and it's not accurate to make him out to be some kind of angel, especially considering he threw some other kid's drawing down the toilet.

Are you for real!? You literally can not be for real...

I'm not saying the punishment fits the crime. I'm just saying that some of the comments on the first page were getting a bit ridiculous. For example, Ninja Girl wrote:

"Poor little boy, he was far far too good for them. "

Perhaps the little boy was far too good for the guy who put him into a washing machine. I agree that guy's extremely messed up. I don't want to be too critical though as he probably has something extremely wrong with him.

But "them" as a plural? What does she mean by "them"? Was the little boy "far too good" for the guy whose picture he flushed down the toilet?

The little boy is not an angel just because something awful happened to him. Many kids, just like adults, are pricks, and they don't suddenly become perfect just because something awful has happened to them.

If I could have done something to stop this from happening, I would have.

Note that I said it's not "accurate" to make him out to be some kind of angel. I didn't say it's not "right". Perhaps it is nice to be respectful of a kid who has just died, but some of the things being said about him here certainly are not "accurate". You can be nice and rational at the same time you know. They could have just said "R.I.P." or "poor kid" or "punishment certainly did not fit the crime", rather than gushing with the completely inaccurate (or at least unverifiable) "Poor little boy, he was far far too good for them. "

I call troll. I hope you are anyway.

I'm not saying the punishment fits the crime. I'm just saying that some of the comments on the first page were getting a bit ridiculous. For example, Ninja Girl wrote:

"Poor little boy, he was far far too good for them. "

Perhaps the little boy was far too good for the guy who put him into a washing machine. I agree that guy's extremely messed up. I don't want to be too critical though as he probably has something extremely wrong with him.

But "them" as a plural? What does she mean by "them"? Was the little boy "far too good" for the guy whose picture he flushed down the toilet?

The little boy is not an angel just because something awful happened to him. Many kids, just like adults, are pricks, and they don't suddenly become perfect just because something awful has happened to them.

If I could have done something to stop this from happening, I would have.

Note that I said it's not "accurate" to make him out to be some kind of angel. I didn't say it's not "right". Perhaps it is nice to be respectful of a kid who has just died, but some of the things being said about him here certainly are not "accurate". You can be nice and rational at the same time you know. They could have just said "R.I.P." or "poor kid" or "punishment certainly did not fit the crime", rather than gushing with the completely inaccurate (or at least unverifiable) "Poor little boy, he was far far too good for them. "

Which part in particular do you disagree with?

As I said, if I could have prevented this from happening, I would have. I hate the thought of a kid dying in a washing machine as much as most normal people. It makes me very sad actually.

I'm just saying that it's not accurate to make out that the kid was any sort of great guy just for getting shut in a washing machine.

If anything, this suggests he was more irritating than the other kids in the nursery. (Not that I think it was in any way fair that he was killed in such a horrible way. The guy who did it almost certainly had something very wrong with him).

I'm just saying that it's not accurate to make out that the kid was any sort of great guy.

You joined the forum only this month and already have over 400 posts and quite a bit of red rep. Again, I hope you are a troll cos it's a lot better than the alternative of you being a sick bastard.

He was too good for his parents. For both of them. His mother did sweet **** all to stop this child from being abused. They did not deserve to have him as their son, thus he was too good for them.

And yes he's a little angel. A three year old boy is an innocent defenceless child. I don't care how troublesome small children can be, they are not evil, they are not wicked, they do not know enough about the world to have that characteristic. If they are troublesome it is through innocence and ignorance, not spite or hatred. He was an innocent little child with a pure heart, as all toddlers are, so I feel that angel is quite a fitting term.

Furthermore, SERIOUSLY, you're that sick that you would dispute the post I made? Are you really that kind of person?

I think I agree with The Dynamic Uno, you have to either be trolling, or completely devoid of human compassion.

How on earth do you know that?

That is the nature of this society in relation to death, the bad things in most cases are dismissed and the person is considered to be the best there has been... there are always the "was such a wonderful person" comments whether said person was wonderful or a complete and utter arse... like my grandma and grandad used to argue day in day out, yet since his death none of those arguements ever happened, they agreed on everything and never did a single thing to annoy each other, its quite amusing actually... but its gonna happen its how minds work in relation to death, never speak ill of the dead and all that, theres no point getting worked up about it.
(i studied psychology and sociology and did a death and dying module... i couldnt resist replying sorry! lol)

it was a THREE YEAR OLD child! THREE! A toddler, an innocent little child! WTF are you on about? It's not like it was an adult we're talking about here, where his moral standing in society could potentially be called into question, it was a little boy, barely out of nappies! How could there even be any HINT of an assumption that he was anything other than innocent and wonderful?

um... i was speaking in general.......

well you were replying directly to whats-his-face who said that the three year old might not have been as fab as people think he was, so it did sound as though you were applying your theory to this particular case.

If you weren't referring to this little boy then fair enough, I agree with you, but nobody could possibly argue that a 3 year old was a bad person.

My name is "problemsolver". If you forgot that within about 20 minutes of reading it, I have to question the knowledge and reasoning you applied in reaching your conclusion that "nobody could possibly argue that a 3 year old was a bad person."