Red Dead Redemption

Worked as expected, then

I hear ya. One starts to question, is UT doing for themselves as much as they are the boy? Pat themselves on the back? Virtue signalling? I dunno. Maybe the family's socioeconomic status justifies the extra help. Or maybe they are deliberately going over the top to put an exclamation point on how bad it is to bully. I dunno. I'm not going to think about that for a while. I'm just going to enjoy the feel-good parts of the story for the time being.

Be proud of being a Vols fan. This story made me cry. https://beta.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2019/09/09/fourth-grader-was-teased-his-homemade-university-tennessee-logo-then-ut-made-his-drawing-into-real-shirt/ https://abcnews.go.com/US/university-tennessee-offers-admission-year-scholarship-young-vol/story?id=65561186

Tito's

If you replied to that post, that is evidence that you looked at a picture of a nekkid child. Pervert!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1990/05/03/the-childrens-portraits-innocence-or-pornography/34fa3716-3c0d-4a83-9c23-cc16291274d3/ Capo, HuskerPowerVA, Have any of your friends ever shown you candid family photos such as their toddler in the bathtub? If so, then you are guilty of viewing "child pornography" and Jesse Helms instructs you to turn yourselves in to the nearest precinct so that you can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It's that black and white, folks. Context and circumstances don't matter. Are you looking at this picture below? An underaged, naked child? You are technically viewing "child pornography". TURN YOURSELF IN NOW!!!!!!

From 'Hope Floats', where Birdie starts working at the One Hour Photo and is given a briefing: "Occasionally, we get pictures of a somewhat questionable nature." "Naked pictures?" "Oh, we never comment on them. We just hand them over as if we hadn't seen a thing." "I understand, Mr. Davis." "But first, we make a copy. And we put them in the second drawer under the counter. And you can have a look any time you want. Just don't take any of them home with you."

Your surrender is duly noted, and your apology is accepted.

Now you are just making excuses. In the MW case, you implied its black and white -- clearly child pornography, mitigating circumstances don't matter The case I asked you about should be just as black and white. The dude admitted to stealing a truck. Is that not a felony? Now you are lying. I didn't say anything about your family. It was a hypothetical/fictional account using the "royal you". If it make you feel better, perhaps I should have phrased it as "as if one saw their cousin at a family reunion they recently had sex with." Oh, and your last sentence is a lie as well. I clearly stated earlier in this thread that I don't care if MW is a football player for ANY team or not, or just some random kid. While what MW did was morally wrong, the "child porn" charge is unjust.

For someone who previously implied a single piece of evidence clearly indicates circumstances are quite black and white, you now seem to be injecting a lot of gray...

I know, right? I asked you a simple yes/no question, and you avoided it as if one saw their cousin at a family reunion they recently had sex with.

Ad hominem attack FTW!!!!!111oneoneoneone ?lained ni s'ohw --> you

I mean, he stole a truck, which is typically a felony. Are you in denial of that?