Children

[Cup of Tea 3]

I have no problem with the Deathlist concept or any other deathpool types.

 

They are grown adults

have lived a life

we are not inflicting any injury or disease on them

and the ones who are younger to a point are normally there throught there own doing (drug use, drinking etc)

 

But, i think its a bit.. sick.. to be honest to be putting children on any of them.

 

I know none appear on Deathlist, but i saw Kirsty Howard had been picked for the DDP.

 

I dont know Kirsty. Or have any particular favouritism of her, but childrens death isnt something to be joked or gambled on, and shouldnt be took as anything but serious and horrible.

 

Does anybody agree?

[Lady Die 63]

I think children are off-limits for DL.

[Windsor 2,143]

know none appear on Deathlist, but i saw Kirsty Howard had been picked for the DDP.

 

No, we have never considered Kirsty Howard but Kir5ty Howard is a different matter.

 

I've always been led to believe that children are off limits because ranters would constantly annoy us. Like in the Fidel Castro thread, but worse. Also, we are not that sick.

 

I would imagine this thread will also soon be deleted.

[Godot 148]

I have no problem with the Deathlist concept or any other deathpool types.

 

They are grown adults

have lived a life

we are not inflicting any injury or disease on them

and the ones who are younger to a point are normally there throught there own doing (drug use, drinking etc)

 

But, i think its a bit.. sick.. to be honest to be putting children on any of them.

 

I know none appear on Deathlist, but i saw Kirsty Howard had been picked for the DDP.

 

I dont know Kirsty. Or have any particular favouritism of her, but childrens death isnt something to be joked or gambled on, and shouldnt be took as anything but serious and horrible.

 

Does anybody agree?

Cuppa, you need to work on your "their" possessive and your "there" where you put stuff.

 

What about Shirley Temple Black? She was a kid once. The only problem with kids is that very few of them are famous and even fewer are famous and nearly dead except those that get run over and how would you know about that? How would you know that Eric Clapton's son was going to fall off a balcony. Besides, even though his dad is famous, Clapton jr only became famous in death when Eric sang about him. Very touching it was too.

[Cup of Tea 3]

I dont see why it would be deleted?

[Windsor 2,143]

The word 'Children' on deathlist is about as welcome as the same word in the Vatican.

[Godot 148]

If this was year dot and we'd have been at Herod's court there would have been a rush to put Jesus on the AD1 list.

[Handrejka 1,840]

I agree. I have an over 21 only rule for my deathlist

[Godot 148]

If this was year dot and we'd have been at Herod's court there would have been a rush to put Jesus on the AD1 list.

Of course people would have been arguing about whether he was famous enough. Obviously not or they'd have got him.

[Tempus Fugit 212]

I agree. I have an over 21 only rule for my deathlist

If you want to put a child on your DDP entry,

 

I think that's a matter for the individual concerned. DeathList I believe once had Gary Linekers young son as candidate.

 

As child nominees are allowed on DDP, don't let any emotive claptrap deter you from making that choice.

[Tuber Mirum 119]

It's well worth avoiding simply for the trouble it could cause. The HDP has a biggish minus bonus for under-15's so as to discourage people from choosing them.

[football_fan 41]

I have no problem with the Deathlist concept or any other deathpool types.

 

They are grown adults

have lived a life

we are not inflicting any injury or disease on them

and the ones who are younger to a point are normally there throught there own doing (drug use, drinking etc)

 

But, i think its a bit.. sick.. to be honest to be putting children on any of them.

 

I know none appear on Deathlist, but i saw Kirsty Howard had been picked for the DDP.

 

I dont know Kirsty. Or have any particular favouritism of her, but childrens death isnt something to be joked or gambled on, and shouldnt be took as anything but serious and horrible.

 

Does anybody agree?

Hello Cup of Tea,

 

You might want to check out the discussion that we had a couple of months ago in the Kir5ty Howard thread.

 

Regards,

 

ff

[Godot 148]

To make a serious point for a change, most of the threads on this site are pretty sick. Can you have degrees of sickness? Isn't it a mite hypocritical to enjoy the idea of Margaret Thatcher dying (which I don't, incidentally) but to balk at the possibility of a kid dying? Suppose it was a royal kid with haemophilia. There was one once and they shut him out of sight until he died. At least he would have been discussed on the death list had there been one.

[Guest Guest]

To make a serious point for a change, most of the threads on this site are pretty sick. Can you have degrees of sickness? Isn't it a mite hypocritical to enjoy the idea of Margaret Thatcher dying (which I don't, indicentally) but to balk at the possibility of a kid dying? Suppose it was a royal kid with haemophilia. There was one once and they shut him out of sight until he died. At least he would have been discussed on the death list had there been one.

Doesnt matter how old someone is - to predict their death is pretty sick anyway. to predict the death of a child is actually more skillfull. No Age Limits.... CQ - Penzance

[Gangrenous Sphyncter 0]

I'm totally against children being waited upon to die, it is as many stated wrong and out of order. This site is tasteless enough (just enough to my satisfaction - not boringly politically correct yet not being soullessly harsh) without pushing it over the edge with such a concept such as children on the death list, im surprised it was meantioned as i would have thought it would have been a nono in most peoples minds without the need for a say.

[Gangrenous Sphyncter 0]

Doesnt matter how old someone is - to predict their death is pretty sick anyway. to predict the death of a child is actually more skillfull. No Age Limits.... CQ - Penzance

Bold words Mr GUEST but no balls to have an identity

[in eternum+ 20]

I'm totally against children being waited upon to die, it is as many stated wrong and out of order. This site is tasteless enough (just enough to my satisfaction - not boringly politically correct yet not being soullessly harsh) without pushing it over the edge with such a concept such as children on the death list, im surprised it was meantioned as i would have thought it would have been a nono in most peoples minds without the need for a say.

Could you please not imply that everyone shares your own PC hypocritical bullsh*t beliefs. If you don't think children should be included fine, but don't suggest that it's such a given that it shouldn't even be discussed.

 

I think your forum name is wrong, out of order, and tasteless, but would not go so far as to suggest that others share this opinion; nor do I think it's reason enough for you to be banned.

 

I have no problem with the Deathlist concept or any other deathpool types.

 

They are grown adults

have lived a life

we are not inflicting any injury or disease on them

and the ones who are younger to a point are normally there throught there own doing (drug use, drinking etc)

 

But, i think its a bit.. sick.. to be honest to be putting children on any of them.

 

I know none appear on Deathlist, but i saw Kirsty Howard had been picked for the DDP.

 

I dont know Kirsty. Or have any particular favouritism of her, but childrens death isnt something to be joked or gambled on, and shouldnt be took as anything but serious and horrible.

 

Does anybody agree?

 

I don't, based on your reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, if a child who is famous is in a position to be considered a legitimate DL candidate, then they should be included just as all other candidates are. So far, the only reasonable argument against including children is the one made by notapotato and Windsor about the ranters but even that's a bit weak, given how much fun can be had when battling with grazing ranters as they appear and post nonsensically.

 

Perhaps that's the problem: is it possible to take the piss/post sarcastic comments about dying children? If not, why not? Why is that considered 'wrong/tasteless', when posting the same comments about often well-respected members of society is okay?

[Guest Guest]

I'm totally against children being waited upon to die, it is as many stated wrong and out of order. This site is tasteless enough (just enough to my satisfaction - not boringly politically correct yet not being soullessly harsh) without pushing it over the edge with such a concept such as children on the death list, im surprised it was meantioned as i would have thought it would have been a nono in most peoples minds without the need for a say.

Could you please not imply that everyone shares your own PC hypocritical bullsh*t beliefs. If you don't think children should be included fine, but don't suggest that it's such a given that it shouldn't even be discussed.

 

I think your forum name is wrong, out of order, and tasteless, but would not go so far as to suggest that others share this opinion; nor do I think it's reason enough for you to be banned.

 

I have no problem with the Deathlist concept or any other deathpool types.

 

They are grown adults

have lived a life

we are not inflicting any injury or disease on them

and the ones who are younger to a point are normally there throught there own doing (drug use, drinking etc)

 

But, i think its a bit.. sick.. to be honest to be putting children on any of them.

 

I know none appear on Deathlist, but i saw Kirsty Howard had been picked for the DDP.

 

I dont know Kirsty. Or have any particular favouritism of her, but childrens death isnt something to be joked or gambled on, and shouldnt be took as anything but serious and horrible.

 

Does anybody agree?

 

I don't, based on your reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, if a child who is famous is in a position to be considered a legitimate DL candidate, then they should be included just as all other candidates are. So far, the only reasonable argument against including children is the one made by notapotato and Windsor about the ranters but even that's a bit weak, given how much fun can be had when battling with grazing ranters as they appear and post nonsensically.

 

Perhaps that's the problem: is it possible to take the piss/post sarcastic comments about dying children? If not, why not? Why is that considered 'wrong/tasteless', when posting the same comments about often well-respected members of society is okay?

Okiedoke and cheers for the thumbs up on the forum

[Josco 48]

Ahh, free speech. A shrinking commodity in this island paradise of ours. Speaking personally, I am not in favour of children on the list, but I defend anyone else’s right to a different opinion and their ability to state it.

I find it difficult to articulate my reasons, but having children of my own engenders a certain fear of putting others on a list. I should imagine that outliving ones progeny must be one of life’s more miserable experiences.

There is the prospect of 'drive by' ranters to consider, and also the actual logistics of predicting a child’s death. Unless they have a terminal disease, then mathematically they are likely to live longer than more elderly entrants.

In conclusion I am broadly in favour of infant inclusion if carefully considered and discussed.

 

Next weeks taboo subject: Public masturbation.

[Anubis the Jackal 76]

Next weeks taboo subject: Public masturbation.

That'll be The Royal Societys' Christmas Lectures sorted then?

[Guest Guest]

children r innocent they r pure and without blame leave them out of this forum...

[Cerberus 273]

Anyone with teenagers of their own may feel inclined to disagree with that statement ...

[Cowboy Ronnie 77]

to put this less than festive topic to rest, it is correct that George Lineker was once on the list, but it's extremely unlikely any children will be making appearances on future DL's.

[Guest lived so lets die]

I have entered 2 more deadpools this year and one of my picks is Ross Davidson,

because he has got cancer of the brain. So his death is garranteed i don't know how old he is but i would put him in his late thirties or early fourties, meaning that this is tragic yet when he dies i shall score points. Which will be good for me but this does'nt make this less sick and stupid thing to do it's just a bit of fun for us weirdo's .

[Josco 48]

I have entered 2 more deadpools this year and one of my picks is Ross Davidson,

because he has got cancer of the brain. So his death is garranteed i don't know how old he is but i would put him in his late thirties or early fourties, meaning that this is tragic yet when he dies i shall score points. Which will be good for me but this does'nt make this less sick and stupid thing to do it's just a bit of fun for us weirdo's .

But null points for spelling and grammar.

Post is not exactly relevant to the title either.

 

I am a little tetchy today...........