Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Recently my sister and her husband split up, My sister got the kids. Soon after my oldest niece and second oldest, 6 and 4, tells my Mother and there Mommy that daddy "touched " them. My sister was in Oklahoma at the time she found out so drove straight back to Texas to report it to the DHS and police. They found evidence to support the girls claim! BUT My brother in law still gets to take the girls on the weekend due to the DHS saying until the girls tell them in writing that he did touch them and where, They will not file charges on him. How can a child be safe from such acts when our law system wont do anything about it.

That's absolutely disgusting. Their own Dad touching them in inappropriate ways deserves more than being taken away from him, it deserves jail time. What's worse is you said he gets weekends to see them right? Who goes to say that he won't do that while they're in his company and he threatens them or something?..

A) How was it child RAPE? Molestation maybe.

B) How does this make them PRO-Child Rapes or even molestation just because the DHS need it from the girls themselves?

Police these days...with their uniforms and their batons and their need for conclusive evidence.

-AC

Seems a silly situation if true.

Stupid, misleading thread title though.

I know! Whats worse he has childabuse cases against him ATM! His gf who lives with him, he kicked his wife and three kids out of the House to bring in his :skinny: gf and her kids, he said the main reason to leaving her was because she wasn't a size 0 any more. But he got caught duck taping my nieces mouth shut and locking them ina closet! I cant believe the DHS wont do anything about it! My sister is trying to move away and come back to Oklahoma but cant until the divorce is over He will not sign the papers because he said he would kill her before paying child support. its bad enough he repo'd her only truck so she lost her job.=(

Again;

There was no rape, so that's one curiousity as to why you think they are pro-child rape.

Secondly, why do you feel it's appropriate to say they condone raping kids (Which is what Pro- means) just because they want the kids to tell them it happened?

-AC

Not only does he seem a little off the wall, but he seems like he needs a LOT of psychological help.

So, no evidence as to why the DHS are pro-child rape then?

Cool.

Probably might wanna stop saying they are, in that case.

-AC

He truly does. My mom paid a private detective to hunt down his ex wife because she once filed charges on him for the same thing. Its crazy if you ask me. Last week my sister went to pick the kids up before he repo'd her truck, And he beat the shit out of my sister for simply being 12mins early to pick up the kids! He broke her right arm and nose!

Seems a thread better suited to PM.

Oh, it's one of those "I wanna chat with my friend/s." threads.

Does anybody who isn't on her ignore list want to ask her why she called this thread: "DHS pro-child rapes?".

I'm pretty curious to find out.

-AC

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
He truly does. My mom paid a private detective to hunt down his ex wife because she once filed charges on him for the same thing. Its crazy if you ask me. Last week my sister went to pick the kids up before he repo'd her truck, And he beat the shit out of my sister for simply being 12mins early to pick up the kids! He broke her right arm and nose!
I try never to take someone elses business in my own hands but when something gets as serious as that, it's safe to say that I'd make it my own business and probably go after him. I'm not condoning that, however.

He's just like the sadistic fvcks I see on Maury that think they own their wives and control their every move, it seems. But who am I to know?

At least take it to PMs if you're just gonna reply/chat to your friends and don't actually want to discuss it.

-AC

No one said we didn't want to discuss it, it's just the fact that you always have to point something wrong out and type an essay on it, I've never known that to be "discussing."

So it's the fact that she named the thread "DHS pro-child rapes.", which is not only wrong but in extremely bad taste, and I pointed it out as wrong, that's bothering you? She shouldn't have done it then, but of course, despite that evidence you will side with your clique, as always.

Maybe if you two didn't get upset when anybody disagrees with your debates and proves you wrong, you'd not have so many on your ignore list.

Either way, ignore me all you like, but stop turning every thread into a chatroom for you and your buddies, it's ignorant and rude. Go to PMs or the OTF.

-AC

So what if she chose a different word? Molestation and Rape are DEFINATELY along the same lines. Molestation leads to rape a good percentage of the time anyway.

We don't get upset when people disagree with us, it's the fact that everyone has to be stupid and gang up on us BECAUSE we disagreed.

We are no more childish than you are with your constant flaming of other members in different threads. THAT'S what I call childish.

The DHS stated "with out the father confessing or a written document, There is nothing we can do at this time". The girls have told the over seeing officer ont he case about it, But still nothing. The next step is court, If she lucky.

The DHS office there in Mt.Plesant is well known for not taking the right steps to investigate. When living there I once over heard a case that was much like my sisters and it was later in the week where the woman said in the paper " They told me to take it to the dhs in the county over because they couldn't take ona case like this one."

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
So what if she chose a different word? Molestation and Rape are DEFINATELY along the same lines. Molestation leads to rape a good percentage of the time anyway.

Was there rape? No, she never once mentioned there was any rape, any forced intercourse, anything of the sort.

Molestation and rape are not the same thing, at all.

Also, got any stats or proof that molestation leads to rape MOST of the time? You said a "good percentage". Can I see this percentage?

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
We don't get upset when people disagree with us, it's the fact that everyone has to be stupid and gang up on us BECAUSE we disagreed.

Stop and think why that might be, for once.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
We are no more childish than you are with your constant flaming of other members in different threads. THAT'S what I call childish.

I'm not flaming anyone. You call people flamers because they counter your arguments, that's what you lot do. Or you ignore them because you don't want civil discussion. You want to put your points out there and have nobody reply or debate.

Either way, that isn't the issue. The issue is you turning this thread into a chatroom and ignoring the fact that I made no abusive post, simply requests as to why she called the thread what she did.

DHS are not pro-child rapes just because they need evidence of possible molestation, where there WAS no rape ANYWAY.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
The DHS stated "with out the father confessing or a written document, There is nothing we can do at this time". The girls have told the over seeing officer ont he case about it, But still nothing. The next step is court, If she lucky.

The DHS office there in Mt.Plesant is well known for not taking the right steps to investigate. When living there I once over heard a case that was much like my sisters and it was later in the week where the woman said in the paper " They told me to take it to the dhs in the county over because they couldn't take ona case like this one."

So how does that make the organisation PRO-child rape?

As in, for the raping of children.

Answer the question please. No reason why you can't, I'm asking politely.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Seems a thread better suited to PM.

Or an episode of "Trisha"


Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
No one said we didn't want to discuss it, it's just the fact that you always have to point something wrong out and type an essay on it, I've never known that to be "discussing."

Kelly, what we all have to understand is that to -AC the devil is always in the detail.

No, what you have to understand is I'm just asking questions.

If you're wrong, or if I have issues with what you say, I'll say my side of it. I wasn't aware that we all had to hold hands.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, what you have to understand is I'm just asking questions.

If you're wrong, or if I have issues with what you say, I'll say my side of it. I wasn't aware that we all had to hold hands.

-AC

? -AC I was agreeing with you about the thread title being imprecise in a roundabout way.

LOL RAPE

Then say so.

No need to say I'm the "devil" in anything.

-AC

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
The DHS stated "with out the father confessing or a written document, There is nothing we can do at this time". The girls have told the over seeing officer ont he case about it, But still nothing. The next step is court, If she lucky.

The DHS office there in Mt.Plesant is well known for not taking the right steps to investigate. When living there I once over heard a case that was much like my sisters and it was later in the week where the woman said in the paper " They told me to take it to the dhs in the county over because they couldn't take ona case like this one."
It sounds like you have imbreds running your court system.
Originally posted by Zebedee
Or an episode of "Trisha"




Kelly, what we all have to understand is that to -AC the devil is always in the detail.
You're telling me. hanuts

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
It sounds like you have imbreds running your court system.

You're telling me. hanuts Seems like it at times, Im not blaming the courts, they cant help there douchbags. But I just dont understand how can the law allow this to go on and not take an action towards it? The same man was charged for raping his ex wifes daughter 10years ago, she was 12 at the time, And now this has happen to his own children. Even with the cops out at the house the night he broke her arm they still wouldnt arrest him for assualt.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then say so.

No need to say I'm the "devil" in anything.

-AC

I never said you were the devil in anything. I said to you the devil was in the detail which actually is incorrect. I should have said to you God is in the detail which means fine details improve the bigger picture to you. What I said meant fine detail takes away from the bigger picture. Read it back it's a phrase. It doesn't mean you're the devil.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Seems like it at times, Im not blaming the courts, they cant help there douchbags. But I just dont understand how can the law allow this to go on and not take an action towards it? The same man was charged for raping his ex wifes daughter 10years ago, she was 12 at the time, And now this has happen to his own children. Even with the cops out at the house the night he broke her arm they still wouldnt arrest him for assualt.
You know how badly that pisses me off, huh? Lol, it really does! It's like the cops are saying "I don't feel like filling out the paperwork so he can continue abusing her and touching their kids."

How about we go and take a bazooka to them all?

You know I always had high regards for DHS and the work they do until this ONE DHS office. The DHS here is wonderful, They truly help those in need, I just cant believe some of the people working at these other offices. There Inhuman towards abused wife's and children.

WHY is the thread called "DHS pro-child rapes"?

Someone ask.

-AC

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
You know I always had high regards for DHS and the work they do until this ONE DHS office. The DHS here is wonderful, They truly help those in need, I just cant believe some of the people working at these other offices. There Inhuman towards abused wife's and children.
I'm so sorry. hug I truly hope that she can get herself out of there as well as her kids before anything...bad happens..furthermore.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
WHY is the thread called "DHS pro-child rapes"?

Someone ask.

-AC

Dramatic effect, error, emotion who knows. Obviously the thread starter feels the thread is close to them and is quite upset by it. Don't let it worry you -AC.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
WHY is the thread called "DHS pro-child rapes"?

Someone ask.

-AC

Because it attracts more attention than "DHS will not act without proof because people are considered innocent until proven guilty".

Duh.

No worry involved, sheer curiousity.

You don't accuse an organisation of being FOR child rapes just because they require evidence to charge for MOLESTATION. No matter how upset you are.

-AC

Originally posted by Zebedee
Dramatic effect, error, emotion who knows. Obviously the thread starter feels the thread is close to them and is quite upset by it. Don't let it worry you -AC.

Originally posted by Lana
Because it attracts more attention than "DHS will not act without proof because people are considered innocent until proven guilty".

Duh.



Probably

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No worry involved, sheer curiousity.

You don't accuse an organisation of being FOR child rapes just because they require evidence to charge for MOLESTATION. No matter how upset you are.

-AC

I wouldn't and you wouldn't but the thread starter did.

Originally posted by Lana
Because it attracts more attention than "DHS will not act without proof because people are considered innocent until proven guilty".

Duh. Im sorry but he wasnt innocent. When they tell you your child was been raped up the ass by something, as they did my sister, Sorry thats all A person needs to hear before wanting to find the dude and slitting his throat.

You don't do it if you have any sense, then, Zeb.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Im sorry but he wasnt innocent. When they tell you your child was been raped up the ass by something, as they did my sister, Sorry thats all A person needs to hear before wanting to find the dude and slitting his throat.

Who's talking about that? You never said there was any child rape in your initial post, first of all.

Second; just because they can't make convictions on your word alone, doesn't mean they are FOR children being raped, which is what "Pro-child rapes" means.

Do you realise this or not?

-AC

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Im sorry but he wasnt innocent. When they tell you your child was been raped up the ass by something, as they did my sister, Sorry thats all A person needs to hear before wanting to find the dude and slitting his throat.

so you're pro-murder...greeeeeeeat

so is there a shred of legitimacy left in this topic?

And for the record, I tried to change the topic but my computer did a restart and by the time I was back online I couldnt change it to " DHS view on local Child abuse case".

Originally posted by Schecter
so you're pro-murder...greeeeeeeat

so is there a shred of legitimacy left in this topic?
edit: Well you're pro-rape, that's just as bad.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
So are you.

no, i do not support the unlawful killing of human beings.

oh wait, you're using the retarded definition of 'murder' which doesnt exist. my bad.

:edit: oh ok, i figured you were referring to abortion.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Im sorry but he wasnt innocent. When they tell you your child was been raped up the ass by something, as they did my sister, Sorry thats all A person needs to hear before wanting to find the dude and slitting his throat.

That's a rather large change from what you said in your first post. So which is it, then?

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
And for the record, I tried to change the topic but my computer did a restart and by the time I was back online I couldnt change it to " DHS view on local Child abuse case".

I don't buy it, your first reply in the thread was less than 15 minutes after the thread was created.

Originally posted by Schecter
no, i do not support the unlawful killing of human beings.

oh wait, you're using the retarded definition of 'murder' which doesnt exist. my bad.

:edit: oh ok, i figured you were referring to abortion.
No, I was referring to your goofy post about LOL RAPE. I was kidding, poophead.

I dont give a shit if you buy it Lana. I did a make a few post but then when yall started crying about the topic I did go to change it, then had a restart and when I got back poof couldnt.


IM sorry I didnt feel like comeing right out in the first post and going " Hey my 6&4 year old nieces got it up the ass!!!"

Originally posted by Lana
That's a rather large change from what you said in your first post. So which is it, then?



I don't buy it, your first reply in the thread was less than 15 minutes after the thread was created.

yes, its seems like she's lying. first the kid was just fondled, then raped. which is it? id bet neither.

Yeah.

She didn't feel like broadcasting it on the net...but then she did.

Pretty easy to do.

I call bs and lies.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Again;

There was no rape, so that's one curiousity as to why you think they are pro-child rape.

Secondly, why do you feel it's appropriate to say they condone raping kids (Which is what Pro- means) just because they want the kids to tell them it happened?

-AC Because until the girls file it in writing DHS won't do anything.

Think about it, if he had raped them would they still have said the same thing?

What if he rapes them?

He's proven to be dangerous in this regard, and DHS disregards the claims. No protection until.. until when? It's too late?

The stress level in this thread is off the hook. Let's just all "simma' down now!" Go clubbing or somethin'...

It's the GDF, go to the OTF to chat if you don't like it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Because until the girls file it in writing DHS won't do anything.

Think about it, if he had raped them would they still have said the same thing?

What if he rapes them?

He's proven to be dangerous in this regard, and DHS disregards the claims. No protection until.. until when? It's too late?

That still doesn't change the FACT that this does not make the DHS pro child-rape, does it?

They are not sitting there being enthusiastic about raping children.

You and others have issue with the timeframe in which they take action, that's not grounds for accusing the organisation of being child rape proprietors.

-AC

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/5171/boxtrap5yubo2.th.jpg

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's the GDF, go to the OTF to chat if you don't like it.



That still doesn't change the FACT that this does not make the DHS pro child-rape, does it?There is a thought process behind it. "by remaining silent you indirectly help the agressor."

Something like "When they came for my neighbor, I wasn't a Jew so I didn't say anything. When they came for the man across and on the other side of me, I was afraid to get involved. And when they came for me, there was no one left that I could call!"

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They are not sitting there being enthusiastic about raping children.You don't have to openly promote something to be pro-for it.

I'm pro-choice to a certain degree, but I don't go about either helping the pro-choice cause nor hindering the pro-life cause.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You and others have issue with the timeframe in which they take action, that's not grounds for accusing the organisation of being child rape proprietors.-AC I'm not commenting on wether it happened or not, just the logistics of the thought prcess of calling them "pro-childrape"

From my experience I'd have thought that the DHS would have found an excuse to pull the children from the home, based on the perverse incentive factor.

Originally posted by Creshosk
There is a thought process behind it. "by remaining silent you indirectly help the agressor."




All it needs for evil to prosper is good people to say nothing.

Originally posted by Creshosk
There is a thought process behind it. "by remaining silent you indirectly help the agressor."

I'll ask you again; that doesn't mean the DHS are sitting there thinking positively about child rape, and being FOR it, does it?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Something like "When they came for my neighbor, I wasn't a Jew so I didn't say anything. When they came for the man across and on the other side of me, I was afraid to get involved. And when they came for me, there was no one left that I could call!"

You don't have to openly promote something to be pro-for it.

Does the situation she stated mean that the whole organisation condones, accepts or enjoys child rape? Yes or no? I'll ask 'til you answer, Cresh.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm pro-choice to a certain degree, but I don't go about either helping the pro-choice cause nor hindering the pro-life cause.

DOES her posted situation suggest that the entire DHS are paedophiles who like, enjoy or condone child rape? Yes or no?

Not liking the way they handle it doesn't mean they are all enjoying this. Stupid to think they are.

Apathy does not mean guilt.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm not commenting on wether it happened or not, just the logistics of the thought prcess of calling them "pro-childrape"

Which are stupid, because it's a stupid claim to say they are all condoning child rape because they didn't act how YOU and her would have liked them to.

Originally posted by Creshosk
From my experience I'd have thought that the DHS would have found an excuse to pull the children from the home, based on the perverse incentive factor.

Once more:

Does the situation she stated mean that the whole organisation condones, accepts or enjoys child rape? Yes or no?

Yes....or no?

No bs about "YOU DON'T NEED TO OPENLY PROMOTE IT!", be realistic. Read the thread and then reply. She is claiming an entire law enforcement agency is pro-child rape, as in condoning it and accepting it, being FOR paedophilia, because a group of them didn't do anything in this case.

Originally posted by Zebedee


All it needs for evil to prosper is good people to say nothing.

Not really.

-AC

Originally posted by Zebedee


All it needs for evil to prosper is good people to say nothing.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Not really.

-AC

Proverbs 3:7-8 "be not wise in thine old eyes, fear the Lord, and depart from evil, it shall be health to thy navel and marrow to thy bones. "

Don't bring that rubbish into the debate.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Don't bring that rubbish into the debate.

I take it you're not a believer in the book Chill. Fair enough, I believe it has a lot of sensible moral things to say redardless of if you have faith or not.

Originally posted by Zebedee
Proverbs 3:7-8 "be not wise in thine old eyes, fear the Lord, and depart from evil, it shall be health to thy navel and marrow to thy bones. "

Yes, you've read the bible, I don't care for it. Interesting book, but not for me.

How is that book of subjective beliefs relevant? Furthermore, your quote was incorrect.

Evil exists whether good people do something or not, that's a fact. Moreover, evil is a point of view.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, you've read the bible, I don't care for it. Interesting book, but not for me.

How is that book of subjective beliefs relevant? Furthermore, your quote was incorrect.

Evil exists whether good people do something or not, that's a fact. Moreover, evil is a point of view.

-AC

I paraphrased. How is the Bible relevant you ask? That's something you'd have to decide for yourself. Evil is different things to different people that's true. For each of us though, we have a compass.

Yes, but evil will always exist.

So your quote is pointless.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'll ask you again; that doesn't mean the DHS are sitting there thinking positively about child rape, and being FOR it, does it? You know what "turning a blind eye" is right?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Does the situation she stated mean that the whole organisation condones, accepts or enjoys child rape? Yes or no? I'll ask 'til you answer, Cresh.Accepts. Yes. Otherwise, hypothetically speaking they would have taken a more proactive approach to a crime being committed.

You don't have to like it, you just have to accept it. I don't like abortion in the example I gave, but I recognize it as being neccisery.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
DOES her posted situation suggest that the entire DHS are paedophiles who like, enjoy or condone child rape? Yes or no? Condone. Yes. Obviously if her situation were true then they are "excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with " child abuse.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not liking the way they handle it doesn't mean they are all enjoying this. Stupid to think they are.OR stupid for thinking they aren't... You do know the meanings of the words you try to use, yes?

Acceptence doesn't mean liking.
Condoning is turning a blind eye.

Both of these you used, both of which were in the example of them doing nothing. Not even an investigation until the girls put it in writing.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Apathy does not mean guilt.Apathy is acceptence and condoning. Both of which you listed prior.
So yes. Regardless of your thoughts on the matter.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Which are stupid, because it's a stupid claim to say they are all condoning child rape because they didn't act how YOU and her would have liked them to.It's stupid to state that they are for something, based on the criteria you listed?

*tsk* You stirke me as acting rather naive at this conjuncture. That or ignorant of the words you use.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Once more:

Does the situation she stated mean that the whole organisation condones, accepts or enjoys child rape? Yes or no? Yes on two counts.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes....or no? Yes.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No bs about "YOU DON'T NEED TO OPENLY PROMOTE IT!", be realistic. I am. Do you ven know the words you use?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Read the thread and then reply. She is claiming an entire law enforcement agency is pro-child rape, as in condoning it and accepting it, being FOR paedophilia, because a group of them didn't do anything in this case. Correct. Condoning is excusing it, overlooking it, making allowances for it or to be lenient with it.


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not really.

-AC Naive.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, but evil will always exist.

So your quote is pointless.

-AC So accept and condone evil?

"Evil will always exist, so there's not point to fighting it. Just accept it."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, but evil will always exist.

So your quote is pointless.

-AC

I hope one day we will transcend evil and work for the greater good and betterment of society. Whilst I cannot say if this will ever be achieved. I don't see the goal, ideal or quote as pointless. I guess it's a case of my glass is half full as how I percieve humanities potential, wheras yours is half empty judging from your above statement. Only the future or "God", if you believe, knows the answer -AC. Time will tell. It might take millenia or as you say it might never happen. I like to think it will though and the Universe has a bigger point than you and I can comprehend for mankind.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Don't bring that rubbish into the debate. So the source dictates the value and validity of an idea?

"Thoug shall not kill" is a pretty well known bible quote. I guess since the source dictates the validity and value of the concept of not killing, and the source is "rubbish" That means that it should be acceptable for people to go around killing others?

Originally posted by Creshosk
So the source dictates the value and validity of an idea?

"Thoug shall not kill" is a pretty well known bible quote. I guess since the source dictates the validity and value of the concept of not killing, and the source is "rubbish" That means that it should be acceptable for people to go around killing others?

The concept of killing being a bad thing has been around a lot longer than the bible, you realize.

Originally posted by Lana
The concept of killing being a bad thing has been around a lot longer than the bible, you realize. I'm well aware. I'm just attacking the notion of something being "rubbish" simply because it can be found in the bible.

I don't care if a person is religous or not, but to attack an idea simply because some religion thinks it too seems foolish to me.

In wicca there is the "So long as you harm none, do as you will". It's a pretty good idea that I notice alot of people believe. But just because I mentioned that the concept is also in wicca, does that mean its bad due to its religous affiliation?

Originally posted by Creshosk
So accept and condone evil?

"Evil will always exist, so there's not point to fighting it. Just accept it."

Tell me how and where I implied that and you get a golden mansion built by my own hands.

Because I swear I simply just said her quote isn't true, not that we shouldn't fight "evil" when necessary.

Originally posted by Creshosk
You know what "turning a blind eye" is right?

Yes, but I also want to know what your answer to my question is. Give it at any point.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Accepts. Yes. Otherwise, hypothetically speaking they would have taken a more proactive approach to a crime being committed.

You don't have to like it, you just have to accept it. I don't like abortion in the example I gave, but I recognize it as being neccisery.

So we can agree they are not sitting there actually condoning it or being FOR it, right? Then my point about the thread title being dumb and misleading was correct.

I accept that lots of evils exist, it doesn't mean I like them. It means I accept they will exist because to not do so is naive and if anything, prevents effective counter-action.

Molestation will ALWAYS exist, it will NEVER end, so the best we can do is accept that and fight it wherever possible. Trying to cut it out for good, forever, is a dumb idea. Nice, idealistic idea, but an unrealistic one.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Condone. Yes. Obviously if her situation were true then they are "excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with " child abuse.

You deduced that nonsense how? How does that mean the entire DHS enjoys, condones, or is PRO child RAPE?

Not that I believe her, of course.

Originally posted by Creshosk
OR stupid for thinking they aren't... You do know the meanings of the words you try to use, yes?

Acceptence doesn't mean liking.
Condoning is turning a blind eye.

Both of these you used, both of which were in the example of them doing nothing. Not even an investigation until the girls put it in writing.

So let me just clarify; you're suggesting that if we don't have a solid answer, we are to come to no conclusion about anything? Ockham's razor, ever heard of it? Simplest explanation being the best, sometimes? IF this case is true, it's a case of shit law enforcers, not the entire DHS being child molestors or endorsing such.

Those are entirely inapplicable to making the claim that the entire DHS organisation is PRO-Child Rape, as in...positively endorses the act. Like being PRO-Choice, or PRO-life.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Apathy is acceptence and condoning. Both of which you listed prior.
So yes. Regardless of your thoughts on the matter.

Apathy is NOT both acceptance and condoning, it can be acceptance, it doesn't necessarily mean condoning.

I'm apathetic to many things I do not condone. I don't condone murder, I'm not out there crimefighting, why? Cos I ACCEPT it will happen no matter what.

Learn your words.

ap·a·thy

1 : lack of feeling or emotion
2 : lack of interest or concern

From Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Doesn't say anything about condoning, it says the opposite. Lack of concern. Having a lack of concern does not mean you condone the act.

Originally posted by Creshosk
It's stupid to state that they are for something, based on the criteria you listed?

*tsk* You stirke me as acting rather naive at this conjuncture. That or ignorant of the words you use.

Says the man who believes being apathetic to something automatically means you condone it.

If you are claiming the entire DHS are endorsing (Pro, remember) child-rape going on, then it is stupid to do so off the basis of her claim, as that does not speak for the entire DHS.

Your entire argument is based on your inability to differentiate between acceptance and condoning an act. People accept abortion who don't necessarily condone it. You lack the skills.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Yes on two counts.

Of course it doesn't you reactionary flip flopper.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Correct. Condoning is excusing it, overlooking it, making allowances for it or to be lenient with it.

They're not CONDONING it by doing that, though. You obviously have a very naive grasp of what it takes to bring a criminal to justice. A family's word isn't good enough.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Naive.

Naive? Naive is to believe evil can be stopped no matter what by "good men" doing "something".

-AC

Originally posted by Zebedee
I hope one day we will transcend evil and work for the greater good and betterment of society. Whilst I cannot say if this will ever be achieved. I don't see the goal, ideal or quote as pointless. I guess it's a case of my glass is half full as how I percieve humanities potential, wheras yours is half empty judging from your above statement. Only the future or "God", if you believe, knows the answer -AC. Time will tell. It might take millenia or as you say it might never happen. I like to think it will though and the Universe has a bigger point than you and I can comprehend for mankind.

Yes, but that's still bs.

Evil will exist, fight it or not. As long as humans have free thinking minds and free will, they will commit whatever acts they wish, and people will always see certain things as evil.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, but that's still bs.

Evil will exist, fight it or not. As long as humans have free thinking minds and free will, they will commit whatever acts they wish, and people will always see certain things as evil.

-AC

Glass half empty = -AC

Originally posted by Zebedee
I hope one day we will transcend evil and work for the greater good and betterment of society. Whilst I cannot say if this will ever be achieved. I don't see the goal, ideal or quote as pointless . I guess it's a case of my glass is half full as how I percieve humanities potential, wheras yours is half empty judging from your above statement. Only the future or "God", if you believe, knows the answer -AC. Time will tell. It might take millenia or as you say it might never happen. I like to think it will though and the Universe has a bigger point than you and I can comprehend for mankind.

Glass half full = Zebedee

Are you purposefully ignoring the flaw in your quote or are you just admitting you hold an impossible idealistic view that one day everyone will stop anything that anybody considers evil?

-AC

So, the reason they wont do it at a childs word is this:

In the past, there have been innumerable cases where children had reported child abuse that didn't actually happen. Normally they don't "make it up", but its not unheard of. The biggest problem with these accusations is that, once accused, people can be convinced that they had commited the abuse when it never happened. Once everyone is caught up in the emotions of the situation, it becomes impossible to sort out without direct evidence of something.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that these kids admitted what had happened to a counselor. People, not children, have been shown to be overly leadable by questions, and that therapists, assisted communicators, counselors, whatever, can subconsiously lead them to conclusions. Children are especially susceptable, and in controlled experiments, therapists have been able to implant memories into children, which the children will later elaborate on.

Finally, when it comes to people's memories of childhood trauma, studies have shown that it is unreliable at best. Memory is falliable, and for any reason, people may get certain notions from out of nowhere. It is especially suspect if the memory is spontaniously recalled (meaning that they had forgot about it, or "repressed" it). Again, without evidence, there is really no proof of anything.

Notice: this isn't saying that there was no abuse, it is an answer specifically to why DHS will not do anything at just accusations with no cooberating evidence.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Are you purposefully ignoring the flaw in your quote or are you just admitting you hold an impossible idealistic view that one day everyone will stop anything that anybody considers evil?

-AC

I'm ignoring nothing, it's all about wether you agree with the quote or not. My view is idealistic, wether it's impossible only time will tell.

Originally posted by inimalist
So, the reason they wont do it at a childs word is this:

In the past, there have been innumerable cases where children had reported child abuse that didn't actually happen. Normally they don't "make it up", but its not unheard of. The biggest problem with these accusations is that, once accused, people can be convinced that they had commited the abuse when it never happened.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that these kids admitted what had happened to a counselor. People, not children, have been shown to be overly leadable by questions, and that therapists, assisted communicators, counselors, whatever, can subconsiously lead them to conclusions.

Finally, when it comes to people's memories of childhood trauma, studies have shown that it is unreliable at best. Memory is falliable, and for any reason, people may get certain notions from out of nowhere. It is especially suspect if the memory is spontaniously recalled (meaning that they had forgot about it, or "repressed" it).

Notice: this isn't saying that there was no abuse, it is an answer specifically to why DHS will not do anything at just accusations with no cooberating evidence.

I agree, corrobarative evidence is always desirable in this tyoe of thing.

Do you genuinely believe there will come a time where everyone agrees on everything? You can't be that naive. Either way, let's let Creshosk reply so I can handle him.

I don't want to drag this off topic.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you genuinely believe there will come a time where everyone agrees on everything? You can't be that naive.

-AC

I believe collective consciousness is a possible long term evolutionary outcome, yes. As people need less and are linked more, even at a distance new posthumanist types of socialisation may occur leading to a spiritual enlightenment. I think as people want for less, this may happen. This is not a short term outcome and as I say may take millenia. We have collective agreement from most as far as morals are concerned. In the future we may be able to identify what causes deviance which some might term evil and be able to correct it. Who knows what therapies and cures may be available. It may be some underlying cause leads to people behaving in an evil way, something simple for our descendents to correct. Who knows what the future holds.

I don't believe collective consciousness to be that outlandish, I just disagree that it means we'd all agree.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't believe collective consciousness to be that outlandish, I just disagree that it means we'd all agree.

-AC

It might mean people are less likely to hurt the collective with evil actions. I hope it wouldn't mean complete agreement as if it did creativity would be stifled. However evil is rarely a positive force although it can lead to positive change due to people working against it. This can be both spiritual and technological, Many historical examples occur of this. As I said in the future who knows. Anyway back to topic I guess. One last thought from my soap box, You and I have disagreed, in this thread, neither though is behaving in an evil way.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Tell me how and where I implied that and you get a golden mansion built by my own hands.

Because I swear I simply just said her quote isn't true, not that we shouldn't fight "evil" when necessary.

"Evil will always exist

So its pointless to speakout against it."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, but I also want to know what your answer to my question is. Give it at any point. I did. I said based on the criteria you gave: Yes. My answer is yes. I'm pretty sure you had better reading comprehension skills than that.

When I say yes. I mean yes. Yes means yes, as yes will always be yes, for when yes is not yes we refer to it as no. But the answer is yes.

"Condone" and "accept" if not "like"

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So we can agree they are not sitting there actually condoning it Do you even know what that word means?

Evidently you don't. because you are using it wrong. Did you mean another word that means something other thabn condone?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
or being FOR it, right? Then my point about the thread title being dumb and misleading was correct.Since you misuse a word to reach your conclusion I'm afraid you'll have to either admit you were wrong (this has gone beond the initial point of HER reasoning into justifying her reasoning.) or restate your opinion in different words so that you were correct.

As it stands now you are not correct.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I accept that lots of evils exist,That was one of the criteria you listed before. That means that you are pro-evil by your own reasoning.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
it doesn't mean I like them. You don't have to. As I said before, I don't like abortions, I accept them. and am pro-choice. I don't think anyone LIKES abortions. but that wouldn't change the stance of being for them, as opposed to having people suffer needlessly.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It means I accept they will exist because to not do so is naive and if anything, prevents effective counter-action. so speaking out against evil is still pointless?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Molestation will ALWAYS exist, it will NEVER end, so the best we can do is accept that and fight it wherever possible. ANd what about NOT fighting it? Makeing excuses for it, what would that fall under?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Trying to cut it out for good, forever, is a dumb idea. Nice, idealistic idea, but an unrealistic one. Gee... you're contradicting yourself again... That or you like to practice insanity.

"fight it wherever possible."
"Trying to cut it out for good, forever, is a dumb idea."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You deduced that nonsense how? How does that mean the entire DHS enjoys, condones, or is PRO child RAPE? Again, you use the word condone. Go look it up before using it again.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not that I believe her, of course.



So let me just clarify; you're suggesting that if we don't have a solid answer, we are to come to no conclusion about anything? Ockham's razor, ever heard of it? Simplest explanation being the best, sometimes? IF this case is true, it's a case of shit law enforcers, not the entire DHS being child molestors or endorsing such.I'd like to know where you got the concept of me suggesting that... but then your reading comprehension is in question, and I'm not really interested in your bullshit.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Those are entirely inapplicable to making the claim that the entire DHS organisation is PRO-Child Rape, as in...positively endorses the act. Like being PRO-Choice, or PRO-life. You don't have to positively endorse something to be for it. I don't "positively endorce" abortions... does that mean that I'm NOT pro-choice?

Again, Rehtorical question and socratic irony: do you even know what the word condone means?

Answer:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Apathy is NOT both acceptance and condoning, it can be acceptance, it doesn't necessarily mean condoning. You're completely clueless as to what the word means.

Go grab a dictionary, and come back with the word that you actually mean.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm apathetic to many things I do not condone. I don't condone murder, I'm not out there crimefighting, why? Cos I ACCEPT it will happen no matter what.That's making an excuse for it.

"It'll happen anyway,"

That's makeing an excuse, that is condoning it. Go look the word up.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Learn your words.Hypocrisy at its finest. You have no clue what condone means and you're telling me to learn my words?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Says the man who believes being apathetic to something automatically means you condone it.Yar. Cause of what the word condone means.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you are claiming the entire DHS are endorsing (Pro, remember)Shifting the accent? "No true scotsman"

Are you taking back condoning something being a requisite for being pro something?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
child-rape going on, then it is stupid to do so off the basis of her claim, as that does not speak for the entire DHS.The hypothetical is if her words are true. Since it was already given in the hypothetical that she's telling the truth you don't in the middle switch to say that they aren't... kinda defeats the purpose of said hypothetical.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Your entire argument is based on your inability to differentiate between acceptance and condoning an act. Yours is based on your ignorance of what the word condone means.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
People accept abortion who don't necessarily condone it.You misuse the word again.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You lack the skills. You lack the brains.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Of course it doesn't you reactionary flip flopper. You are a truly pathetic piece of work. Is that the best you have? Calling me a reactionary flip-flopper, based solely on your ignorance and misuing of words?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They're not CONDONING it by doing that, though. You obviously have a very naive grasp of what it takes to bring a criminal to justice.Again, you misuse the word. and since the rest of your argument is based on misinformation, the rest of it is likewise invalid.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A family's word isn't good enough. Of course not. Cause hey, we can't even do an investigation based off of a claim unless they are actually guilty.

But since they're innocent until proven guilty, there's no need for an investigation.

Quit being stupid.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Naive? Naive is to believe evil can be stopped no matter what by "good men" doing "something". okay, then you're pure concentrated evil. Happy?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you genuinely believe there will come a time where everyone agrees on everything? You can't be that naive. Either way, let's let Creshosk reply so I can handle him.

I don't want to drag this off topic.

-AC by handling me you mean "show him my ignorance by misusing more or the same words. And then declare myself the victor in my sheer ignorace of facts and syntax."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't believe collective consciousness to be that outlandish, I just disagree that it means we'd all agree.

-AC Yes, because independant thought is evil.

I love the implication there. He says that he wants to get rid of evil, and you respond with this?

one cannot be declared 'pro-*blank*' as in condoning or being outwardly supportive of something simply because they enable it through lack of action.

to be pro-something means to openly support, as in to be consciously in favor of or at least to willingly permit, which is to condone.

Originally posted by Schecter
one cannot be declared 'pro-*blank*' as in condoning or being outwardly supportive of something simply because they enable it through lack of action.

to be pro-something means to openly support, as in to be consciously in favor of or at least to willingly permit, which is to condone. *sigh* being captain obvious isn't a very well liked job but...

You do realize that you contradicted yourself right?

Originally posted by Creshosk
*sigh* being captain obvious isn't a very well liked job but...

You do realize that you contradicted yourself right?

Perhaps you should change your name to Captain Obvious Cresh, I didn't notice it till you pointed it out.

Originally posted by Creshosk
*sigh* being captain obvious isn't a very well liked job but...

You do realize that you contradicted yourself right?

you could at least do me the pleasure of pointing out how. btw, i havent taken a condescending tone with you, so maybe you should try the same.

Originally posted by Schecter
you could at least do me the pleasure of pointing out how. btw, i havent taken a condescending tone with you, so maybe you should try the same. I apologize for the tone. I'm just affraid that you won't like me pointing out the obvious...

Originally posted by Schecter
one cannot be declared 'pro-*blank*' as in condoning simply because they enable it through lack of action.

to be pro-something means at least to willingly permit, which is to condone.

Originally posted by Zebedee
Perhaps you should change your name to Captain Obvious Cresh, I didn't notice it till you pointed it out. Cresh and Osk are C and O in the Aurabesh. So my name presently is literally "C.O."

Originally posted by Creshosk
I apologize for the tone. I'm just affraid that you won't like me pointing out the obvious...



Cresh and Osk are C and O in the Aurabesh. So my name presently is literally "C.O."

What's Aurabesh? I mean where is it a language and i laugh now I realise you are C.O.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
*Airconditioner's usual blowhard egotism removed to save space.*

http://onelook.com/?w=condone&ls=a

Have a nice day. Its pointless to argue with you. I'll pay you the lip service though:
"you're right, you will always be right, and even facts and logic are wrong before you."

Is that how I turn the airconditioner off? Cause I'm tired of the hot air it's blowing.. again.

Originally posted by Zebedee
What's Aurabesh? I mean where is it a language and i laugh now I realise you are C.O.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Aurek-besh_alphabet.png

Yeah, full name is "Creshosk Pethyirt Creashaurek Trill"

But Creshosk is shorter and it illustrates the captain obvious point rather well.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I apologize for the tone. I'm just affraid that you won't like me pointing out the obvious...

im afraid i still dont see the contradiction. in both statements i believe i parallel condoning and supporting.

my point was that lack of action or even down right idiocy in not addressing the problem is not necessarily the act of condoning. perhaps i should have worded it better, but still i see no contradiction.

anyway, yeah. agree, disagree?

Originally posted by Creshosk
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Aurek-besh_alphabet.png

Yeah, full name is "Creshosk Pethyirt Creashaurek Trill"

But Creshosk is shorter and it illustrates the captain obvious point rather well.

So what's aurabesh without going to far off topic Cresh?

Originally posted by Creshosk
http://onelook.com/?w=condone&ls=a

Have a nice day. Its pointless to argue with you. I'll pay you the lip service though:
"you're right, you will always be right, and even facts and logic are wrong before you."

Is that how I turn the airconditioner off? Cause I'm tired of the hot air it's blowing.. again.

All of those definitions agree with me, good job. The third one down is the place I got the definition from that I used against you, hence why you're not replying.

Would have been more honourable to admit you were wrong, by fact, by dictionary, but you weasel.

You are wrong by the very area you used to try to disprove me, just have a bit of dignity at least admit it. Don't say "You're right." as if you're doing me a favour. I am, the dictionary proves me right, proves YOU wrong, and you are a misintepretive fool.

Also, you typically turn on the AC when you want to cool down, so it's a bit of an irrelevant diss.

-AC

Originally posted by Schecter
im afraid i still dont see the contradiction. in both statements i believe i parallel condoning and supporting.

my point was that lack of action or even down right idiocy in not addressing the problem is not necessarily the act of condoning. perhaps i should have worded it better, but still i see no contradiction.

anyway, yeah. agree, disagree? Well, I can agree to disgree with you.

For me, knowing about something and then not enacting against it when in a position of authority to do so, is condoning it. And as I've said

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=condone&r=66

That's how I define condoning something. Disregarding something, or overlooking it, making an excuse for it or being lenient with it is condoning it.

http://onelook.com/?w=condone&ls=a

As I said, I can agree to disagree with you. and again I apologize for any offense I might have done in tone or action toward you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
All of those definitions agree with me, good job. The third one down is the place I got the definition from that I used against you, hence why you're not replying.

Would have been more honourable to admit you were wrong, by fact, by dictionary, but you weasel.

You are wrong by the very area you used to try to disprove me, just have a bit of dignity at least admit it. Don't say "You're right." as if you're doing me a favour. I am, the dictionary proves me right, proves YOU wrong, and you are a misintepretive fool.

Also, you typically turn on the AC when you want to cool down, so it's a bit of an irrelevant diss.

-AC Yes of course AC, whatever you say. you can misinterpret things to suit your favor now as you have ever done, and even know as others do so in their fanboyish ways in the comics section.

It's pointless to argue with you.

As obviously "excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with " and

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=condone&r=66

Agrees with you and overlooking something is not condoning.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=air+conditioner

Originally posted by Creshosk
Yes of course AC, whatever you say. you can misinterpret things to suit your favor now as you have ever done, and even know as others do so in their fanboyish ways in the comics section.

It's pointless to argue with you.

As obviously "excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with " and

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=condone&r=66

Agrees with you and overlooking something is not condoning.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=air+conditioner

First one:

1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).

This doesn't contradict what I say. I am not disregarding or overlooking child rape, it needs to be dealt with when it can. Accepting it happens and saying it is an ACCEPTABLE ACT are two different things, do you or do you NOT see that?

2. to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.

SEEMED TO. Doesn't mean "he" does. I am silent over murder in my actions, I do not go out trying to stop it, so to you; a presumptuous fool, it seems like I view it as acceptable acts, I do not. Flawed perception.

3. to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.

Nobody is pardoning or forgiving child rape.

4. to cause the condonation of.

Nobody is.

5. Law. to forgive or act so as to imply forgiveness of (a violation of the marriage vow).

Nobody is forgiving child rape.

Do you actually not understand the difference between saying "I accept child rape happens." and "Child rape is acceptable."? Or not?

This isn't a case of "AC has to be right.", so trying to play it off as such will make you look dumb. I'm clearly and fairly countering your misinterpretations.

-AC

Come on guys let's forget the symantics. Group hug?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Well, I can agree to disgree with you.

For me, knowing about something and then not enacting against it when in a position of authority to do so, is condoning it. And as I've said

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=condone&r=66

hmmm, which would be to "willingly permit", as i have said. so we agree on the definition.

so, back to my point: in the case where a crime is not willingly permitted, but rather enabled through incompetance, this is not the act of condoning. to condone is to consciously, knowing, purposefully, and actively allow.


Originally posted by Creshosk
As I said, I can agree to disagree with you. and again I apologize for any offense I might have done in tone or action toward you.

well thats quite alright and i appreciate it. i was simply wanting to avoid further unpleasantries, so i assure you that no feelings were hurt and thus no worries.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
First one:

1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).

This doesn't contradict what I say. I am not disregarding or overlooking child rape, it needs to be dealt with when it can. Accepting it happens and saying it is an ACCEPTABLE ACT are two different things, do you or do you NOT see that?Feeling a touch matyrish?

We weren't talking about you. We were talking abou the hypothetical of the original poster haveing told the truth.

The representitive(s) of DHS, after being told about molestation occuring overlooked the occurence by not initiating an investigation, and not putting a halt on the visitation of the offender.

Remember the hypothetical is that the OP is telling the truth, which includes the fact that the guy was molesting the girls.

So tell me, how is this knowledgeable inactivity not overlookiong something? Don't forget what we were orginally discussing.

DHS is allowing the molestation to continue through inaction.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
2. to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.

SEEMED TO. Doesn't mean "he" does. I am silent over murder in my actions, I do not go out trying to stop it, so to you; a presumptuous fool, it seems like I view it as acceptable acts, I do not. Flawed perception. Now you're going to quibble over the example THEY gave? And you say that I weasel out of stuff.

Again, this isn't about you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
3. to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.

Nobody is pardoning or forgiving child rape. forgot the topic in question and the hypothetical of the story being true?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
4. to cause the condonation of.

Nobody is.

5. Law. to forgive or act so as to imply forgiveness of (a violation of the marriage vow).

Nobody is forgiving child rape.

Do you actually not understand the difference between saying "I accept child rape happens." and "Child rape is acceptable."? Or not?

This isn't a case of "AC has to be right.", so trying to play it off as such will make you look dumb. I'm clearly and fairly countering your misinterpretations.

-AC Whatever you say AC... I know, lets attack examples that the dictionay gave, the dictionary must be wrong then, that way you can remain right.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Feeling a touch matyrish?

We weren't talking about you. We were talking abou the hypothetical of the original poster haveing told the truth.

The representitive(s) of DHS, after being told about molestation occuring overlooked the occurence by not initiating an investigation, and not putting a halt on the visitation of the offender.

You have a half/half argument there, I'll agree. On one hand, perhaps he should have initiated an investigation, but you have to consider how he was presented with the case, etc. It may have seemed different to him.

Secondly, he cannot consider the man an offender without proof.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Remember the hypothetical is that the OP is telling the truth, which includes the fact that the guy was molesting the girls.

So tell me, how is this knowledgeable inactivity not overlookiong something? Don't forget what we were orginally discussing.

It still does not necessarily mean he is pro-child rape, that is my point.

Originally posted by Creshosk
DHS is allowing the molestation to continue through inaction.

But that does not mean they do so for the reasons of "We like child molestation.", and molestation doesn't mean rape.

Furthermore, he may not be letting it continue in the knowledge that it's actually happening. Police have a lot more to consider, they cannot just act on "THIS HAPPENED!".

Originally posted by Creshosk
Now you're going to quibble over the example THEY gave? And you say that I weasel out of stuff.

A) You did weasel, and have still to admit you got the definition of the word wrong. As evidence by Schecter and I.

B) That's not definitive. I'm arguing about the definition. Seeming to condone something through inaction does not mean you are, there can be many other reasons FOR inaction.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Again, this isn't about you.

Good, but stop using the definition wrongly in application to me.

Originally posted by Creshosk
forgot the topic in question and the hypothetical of the story being true?

Whatever you say AC... I know, lets attack examples that the dictionay gave, the dictionary must be wrong then, that way you can remain right.

My only argument was how YOU were telling ME I got the definition wrong with regards to my own personal stance and I did not, I factually proved this with examples. You made it about me, so I proved that accepting something EXISTS is not the same as calling it an acceptable act. You got everything confused and refuse to admit so.

That's my issue with you.

-AC

Originally posted by Zebedee


All it needs for evil to prosper is good people to say nothing.

S-someone also has to do the evil stuff.

Won't prosper itself, will it?

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Recently my sister and her husband split up, My sister got the kids. Soon after my oldest niece and second oldest, 6 and 4, tells my Mother and there Mommy that daddy "touched " them. My sister was in Oklahoma at the time she found out so drove straight back to Texas to report it to the DHS and police. They found evidence to support the girls claim! BUT My brother in law still gets to take the girls on the weekend due to the DHS saying until the girls tell them in writing that he did touch them and where, They will not file charges on him. How can a child be safe from such acts when our law system wont do anything about it.

The DHS and the DPS have never been very reliable agencies. I've heard a lot of horror stories involving both. I myself, was once arrested by a DPS officer on bullshit charges.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You have a half/half argument there, I'll agree. On one hand, perhaps he should have initiated an investigation, but you have to consider how he was presented with the case, etc. It may have seemed different to him.

Secondly, he cannot consider the man an offender without proof.The hypothetical is that she's telling the truth:

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
They found evidence to support the girls claim!

Evidence constitutes as proof doesn't it? I have no idea what kind of evidence they could have found but... for the hypothetical this is also assumed to be true.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It still does not necessarily mean he is pro-child rape, that is my point.So will we determine that condoning something doesn't make you pro that something?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
But that does not mean they do so for the reasons of "We like child molestation.", and molestation doesn't mean rape.Again, Liking something isn't a qualifier. I don't like abortion. I think its terrible. But I am prochoice, as its best option we have to minimize suffereing.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Furthermore, he may not be letting it continue in the knowledge that it's actually happening. Police have a lot more to consider, they cannot just act on "THIS HAPPENED!".If it's given that they have evidence, they should have investigated it. Rather than requesting it in writing from the girls. I mean, how old are the girls? Can they read or write?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) You did weasel, and have still to admit you got the definition of the word wrong. As evidence by Schecter and I.No. "so we agree on the definition." does not mean that he disagreed with me.

But way to misinterpret events again.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
B) That's not definitive. I'm arguing about the definition. Seeming to condone something through inaction does not mean you are, there can be many other reasons FOR inaction.And you're STILL attacking the dictionary's example...

"They used the word seemed in the example! The example isn't valid! Therefore..."

Actually that's all I can figure out... I know you're weasling by attacking the example that the dictionary gave. But just because the example would be wrong doesn't invalidate the entry

"Tacit approval" is still "Approval without words" or "turning a blind eye"

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Good, but stop using the definition wrongly in application to me.:rollseyes: I'm not using the definition wrongly, you are.

"Turning a blind eye" is "condoning" its "overlooking" its "willingly permitting".

I don't care if you don't like this, but that's the way of things.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
My only argument was how YOU were telling ME I got the definition wrong And you did. And still are.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
with regards to my own personal stance and I did not, I factually proved this with examples. Sure you did... pull the other one. It's always amusing when a person who's been proven wrong says they've proven their case... Just like 2damnloud and other fanboys who refuse to admit that the evidence isn't in their favor.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You made it about me, so I proved that accepting something EXISTS is not the same as calling it an acceptable act. You got everything confused and refuse to admit so.Really? Show me where I said anything to the effect that you were pro-child rape. Quote me.

I want to see where I said that you were pro-child rape. And not with my usual sarcastic tone. Show me where I wasn't being facetious, and seriously said you were pro-child rape.

You can't, because I didn't.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's my issue with you.No you don't like that I won't roll over and go belly up and lie by saying you were correct.

I mean hell. You asked a question about how someone could use the title of calling them pro-child rape. I gave you the reasoning, then you attcked me and forced me to prove that the reasoning was valid. So here I am. defending the stance that condoning something matches the dictionary entry that you couldn't even attack properly. You attacked an example because they used the word seemingly. But ignored what that entry was. "Wordless approval"

Guys, can't you just let it go?

Too much debating?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
S-someone also has to do the evil stuff.

Won't prosper itself, will it?

Semantics. Pointless to argue.

Originally posted by Zebedee
Semantics. Pointless to argue.

Not semantics, nor argument. Just a harmless comment on the incomplete nature of gnomes.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Not semantics, nor argument. Just a harmless comment on the incomplete nature of gnomes. Underpants gnomes that steal underwear?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Not semantics, nor argument. Just a harmless comment on the incomplete nature of gnomes.

Harmless, yes, but more a case of thinking the devils in the detail, rather than bothering with the meaning behind the phrase. Probably?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Too much debating?

lol

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Too much debating?
Funny, I don't see much "debating" in any of it, more like bickering back and forth.

Originally posted by Zebedee
Harmless, yes, but more a case of thinking the devils in the detail, rather than bothering with the meaning behind the phrase. Probably?

No.

An Alan Partridge-esque comment, hence the stutter.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Funny, I don't see much "debating" in any of it, more like bickering back and forth.

This affects you why?

They are arguing regarding the original thread title. It's a debate. 'Bickering' isn't excluded from debating; 'back and forth' is pretty much necessary.

Originally posted by Creshosk
The hypothetical is that she's telling the truth:

Yes, I'm aware.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Evidence constitutes as proof doesn't it? I have no idea what kind of evidence they could have found but... for the hypothetical this is also assumed to be true.

There are reasons they may have overlooked it that do not constitute condoning it as an acceptable act.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So will we determine that condoning something doesn't make you pro that something?

Who said that? I said unless there's proof they condoned it because they view child rape as an acceptable act, they are not pro-child rape and in ANY CASE, it does not apply the the DHS generally.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Again, Liking something isn't a qualifier. I don't like abortion. I think its terrible. But I am prochoice, as its best option we have to minimize suffereing.

Clever boy.

Originally posted by Creshosk
If it's given that they have evidence, they should have investigated it. Rather than requesting it in writing from the girls. I mean, how old are the girls? Can they read or write?

So your argument is essentially that they should have done more? Not that they sat there saying "We won't do anything cos we want them to be abused."? To be honest, we need more details on the situation before we can judge.

Originally posted by Creshosk
No. "so we agree on the definition." does not mean that he disagreed with me.

But way to misinterpret events again.

Schecter quite clearly said that not being active in prevention doesn't mean you condone it, which is what I've been saying.

Originally posted by Creshosk
And you're STILL attacking the dictionary's example...

"They used the word seemed in the example! The example isn't valid! Therefore..."

Actually that's all I can figure out... I know you're weasling by attacking the example that the dictionary gave. But just because the example would be wrong doesn't invalidate the entry

I'm not attacking the dictionary, it proves YOU wrong.

You told me that apathy IS acceptance and condoning. It is not, fact. Now let me ask you a question, please answer;

Do you see a difference between "Child rape exists, I accept that." and "Child rape is acceptable as an act."? Yes or no?

Originally posted by Creshosk
"Tacit approval" is still "Approval without words" or "turning a blind eye"

So basically you are reading between the lines and getting what you want, not reading the actual lines?

Originally posted by Creshosk
:rollseyes: I'm not using the definition wrongly, you are.

How? I've literally pasted the definition of the word "Condone" many times. It is to be PRO something, as in, WANT it to happen. Accepting an event and wanting the event are not the same.

I didn't want the Iraq war, I accept it happened. The DHS as a whole did not want the child rape.

Originally posted by Creshosk
"Turning a blind eye" is "condoning" its "overlooking" its "willingly permitting".

You are the one assuming they turned a blind eye because that's what WTM is saying. She's saying that because they didn't act in a way she desired, they therefore are PRO-Child rape, which is to say they wanted it to happen.

She has only given us her side, it's quite clear she wanted to convey the events a certain way.

Why she is even saying "Hey my family members were raped." on a public forum is also a question in need of answering.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I don't care if you don't like this, but that's the way of things.

And you did. And still are.

I'm not, fact. The dictionaries you posted actually agree with me, and you are assuming that's what happened in this case.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Sure you did... pull the other one. It's always amusing when a person who's been proven wrong says they've proven their case... Just like 2damnloud and other fanboys who refuse to admit that the evidence isn't in their favor.

I haven't actually been proven wrong. My stance was, regarding "evil", we should accept that it exists, not let it happen in every single case if we can stop it. Acceptance, not condoning. Acceptance does not imply that you condone it. You tried telling me this definition was wrong, it factually is not.

Again, is there not a difference between; "I accept child rape exists." and "I think it's acceptable to do."?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Really? Show me where I said anything to the effect that you were pro-child rape. Quote me.

I want to see where I said that you were pro-child rape. And not with my usual sarcastic tone. Show me where I wasn't being facetious, and seriously said you were pro-child rape.

You can't, because I didn't.

Before I grab the quote, you are denying that you claimed my acceptance of the existence of child rape meant that I condoned it, by saying they were one and the same?

You're denying you said that?

Originally posted by Creshosk
No you don't like that I won't roll over and go belly up and lie by saying you were correct.

I don't need you to, you're wrong. Accepting an existence doesn't mean you condone the act.

I don't like you doing what you're doing? I knew you would, I said it. You're the biggest weasel on KMC.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I mean hell. You asked a question about how someone could use the title of calling them pro-child rape. I gave you the reasoning, then you attcked me and forced me to prove that the reasoning was valid. So here I am. defending the stance that condoning something matches the dictionary entry that you couldn't even attack properly. You attacked an example because they used the word seemingly. But ignored what that entry was. "Wordless approval"

That'd work if the reasoning WAS valid. You base your entire argument on "They should have done something." when all we have is a biased argument, and you are pasting that to the whole DHS organisation, which is very stupid.

Then when I said that Zebadee's quote was stupid, because trying to eradicate ALL evil, forever, is unrealistic, you accused me of saying that we should let it happen. Then upon me saying that we need to accept that the acts exist, not accept the acts as ok, you told me that the definition of "Apathy" was to accept AND condone. You are wrong, you can accept and not condone as the dictionary proves.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Funny, I don't see much "debating" in any of it, more like bickering back and forth.

Leave the thread then.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No.

An Alan Partridge-esque comment, hence the stutter.

I see, Smell my cheese! I should have realised, maybe
"hoh-hee-hoh-hee-hoh".

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No.

An Alan Partridge-esque comment, hence the stutter.



This affects you why?

They are arguing regarding the original thread title. It's a debate. 'Bickering' isn't excluded from debating; 'back and forth' is pretty much necessary.
Yes, but the fact that it's been going on for 5 or so pages with no resolution is my point.

Happens.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Yes, but the fact that it's been going on for 5 or so pages with no resolution is my point.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Happens.


What amazes me is they both can be bothered to read each others posts at this point. I dooubt anyone else is.

Some people are just upset that the thread isn't a chatroom anymore.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Some people are just upset that the thread isn't a chatroom anymore.

-AC

What do you mean -AC?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Some people are just upset that the thread isn't a chatroom anymore.

-AC

speaking of which....how was your day? *hugs*

Originally posted by Schecter
speaking of which....how was your day? *hugs*

Hi Schecter!

This is totally my most favoritest forom EVAR!!1!1


Look at that banana!!!1

Originally posted by Schecter
so you're pro-murder...greeeeeeeat

so is there a shred of legitimacy left in this topic? No.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There are reasons they may have overlooked it that do not constitute condoning it as an acceptable act.And what would some of these supposed reasons be? or is this a "great unknown"? "Oh the reasons exist, I don't know what they are but they exist."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Who said that? I said unless there's proof they condoned it because they view child rape as an acceptable act, they are not pro-child rape and in ANY CASE, it does not apply the the DHS generally.Its why a person can be fired for saying the wrong thing, each person acts as sort of representitive of the company or oginization they work for. If the single person condoned it through tacit acceptence, then th e company/orginization whould have either issued a statement to counteract what was said or fired the guy... or both.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So your argument is essentially that they should have done more? Not that they sat there saying "We won't do anything cos we want them to be abused."? To be honest, we need more details on the situation before we can judge. Going off of the hypothetical that what she said was true?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Schecter quite clearly said that not being active in prevention doesn't mean you condone it, which is what I've been saying.IT doesn't matter what another person says. it being a popular opinion does not make it a valid one. And did you miss the part about "willingly permit"?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not attacking the dictionary, it proves YOU wrong.But you are attacking the dictionary's example. Deny it all you want, it doesn't mean you didn't. It doesn't prove me wrong in fact its funny that you could only attack the example rather than the actual entry of "tacit approval"

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You told me that apathy IS acceptance and condoning. It is not, fact. Yeah you still have no clue what condoning means.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Now let me ask you a question, please answer;Pssh... I'm not going to answer specifically because it annoys you. I recognize the clever wording you're trying to pull which ignores other outside posabilities. There is not an absolute between these two here. Learn what condone means and then get back to me. Until you prove to me you understand what condoning is... well I'll not answer the question. Because it annoys me for you to misuse the word. So I'll return the favoer by ignoring your question.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So basically you are reading between the lines and getting what you want, not reading the actual lines? That would be you doing that. and now you're projecting.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How? I've literally pasted the definition of the word "Condone" many times. It is to be PRO something, as in, WANT it to happen. Accepting an event and wanting the event are not the same. It doesn't matter how many times you post a definition if you don't understand it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't want the Iraq war, I accept it happened. The DHS as a whole did not want the child rape. prove it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are the one assuming they turned a blind eye because that's what WTM is saying. And the hypothetical is that she's telling the truth remember? Of course not, you forget that detail whenever its inconveinent for you, just like you do with everything else.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
She's saying that because they didn't act in a way she desired, they therefore are PRO-Child rape, which is to say they wanted it to happen.No. I don't want abortions to happen. but they are the lesser of the two evils. I'm pro-choice despite not wanting abortions to happen.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
She has only given us her side, it's quite clear she wanted to convey the events a certain way. And its clear that you're ignoring the hypothetical of her telling the truth... again. Why is that? Is it because it doesn't suit your argument? That it proves you wrong?

Funny that.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why she is even saying "Hey my family members were raped." on a public forum is also a question in need of answering. Irrelivent. You're failing to convince me so are making red herring.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not, fact. The dictionaries you posted actually agree with me, "denial" isn't just a rvier in egypt. They don't actually agree with you. But I guess you lack the reading comprehension to realize that.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
and you are assuming that's what happened in this case. Remember that oh-so-inconvienent hypothetical? No, of course not, it doesn't suit your argument.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I haven't actually been proven wrong. Sure you haven't. You're nerver wrong, you're always right, and you'll always be right. Even when facts aren't on yourside, you're right because your ego says you have to be.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
My stance was, regarding "evil", we should accept that it exists, not let it happen in every single case if we can stop it. Acceptance, not condoning. Acceptance does not imply that you condone it. You tried telling me this definition was wrong, it factually is not. And you use factually incorrectly .. as factually it is. Dictionary definition says so... remember the one entry where the best you could do is attack the example? "Oh noes! It sez SEEMED! dictionary wwonr, me right. you dumb for disagreeing with all mighty AC! All bow before him massive penis."

Or something to that effect...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Again, is there not a difference between; "I accept child rape exists." and "I think it's acceptable to do."? Peanut butter... it tastes good and is good for you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Before I grab the quote, you are denying that you claimed my acceptance of the existence of child rape meant that I condoned it, by saying they were one and the same? Uhuh! Remember I had to have been serious and not sarcastic or facetious.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're denying you said that?Seriously.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't need you to, you're wrong. You're right, I argued against you, therefore I'm automatically wrong. your massive penis says so.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Accepting an existence doesn't mean you condone the act.

I don't like you doing what you're doing? I knew you would, I said it. You're the biggest weasel on KMC. Projecting again. You're the biggest weasel. Deny it all you want, you know deep down its true... unless you're too stupid to realize that you are. Are you too stupid to realize you are?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That'd work if the reasoning WAS valid. You base your entire argument on "They should have done something." when all we have is a biased argument, and you are pasting that to the whole DHS organisation, which is very stupid. Yes, its stupid to stick to a hypothetical that was set up... they prove aC wrong therefore they're stupid.

And you say I'm the biggest weasel.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then when I said that Zebadee's quote was stupid, because trying to eradicate ALL evil, forever, is unrealistic, you accused me of saying that we should let it happen./quote] Yes, the quote is stupid because it differes from your oopinion... got it, ya weasel you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then upon me saying that we need to accept that the acts exist, not accept the acts as ok, you told me that the definition of "Apathy" was to accept AND condone. You are wrong, you can accept and not condone as the dictionary proves.Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Leave the thread then.

-AC "You're wrong. You're stupid. The facts agree with me!"

Originally posted by Creshosk
And what would some of these supposed reasons be? or is this a "great unknown"? "Oh the reasons exist, I don't know what they are but they exist."

Well do you take everything at face value? You honestly believe that it's as simple as WTM is telling you it is? It went from molestation to rape in about 20 minutes.

The DHS are law enforcement officers, I seriously doubt that her and her family walked in there, made their case and the ENTIRE DHS, ever, just twiddled their thumbs. What you need to realise is, WTM blows things out of proportion.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Its why a person can be fired for saying the wrong thing, each person acts as sort of representitive of the company or oginization they work for. If the single person condoned it through tacit acceptence, then th e company/orginization whould have either issued a statement to counteract what was said or fired the guy... or both.

Yes, and? That doesn't mean everyone of them is not approving of child rape and saying they want it to happen, which is what pro-anything means.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Going off of the hypothetical that what she said was true?

I'm not discussing a hypothetical, it's not a hypothetical thread. You've come in with this idea of hypotheticals. WTM claims this is real, not some play scenario.

Originally posted by Creshosk
IT doesn't matter what another person says. it being a popular opinion does not make it a valid one. And did you miss the part about "willingly permit"?

No, I got that, it's just bs, because it's true what he said, as it says the same in the dictionary.

Originally posted by Creshosk
But you are attacking the dictionary's example. Deny it all you want, it doesn't mean you didn't. It doesn't prove me wrong in fact its funny that you could only attack the example rather than the actual entry of "tacit approval"

Every single entry you gave proves that condoning something requires you to first be aware of what it is at hand, then to overlook it with approval. You are attempting to suggest that because they didn't do enough, they somehow sat there and said they wouldn't do anything cos they wanted child rape to happen.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Yeah you still have no clue what condoning means.

YOU said that. You said, "Apathy is acceptance and condoning.". You said condoning something was simply accepting something exists. YOU said that.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Pssh... I'm not going to answer specifically because it annoys you. I recognize the clever wording you're trying to pull which ignores other outside posabilities. There is not an absolute between these two here. Learn what condone means and then get back to me. Until you prove to me you understand what condoning is... well I'll not answer the question. Because it annoys me for you to misuse the word. So I'll return the favoer by ignoring your question.

No, you will ignore it because you know for a FACT, an undeniable truth and fact that answering it would absolutely devestate your entire debate. That is why you won't answer, fact. There's no "I'm doing it to annoy you.", which would be childish anyway. You won't answer because it'd ruin you and prove that all this time you have been f*cking up the definition.

Don't be a weasel, well...thanks for proving me right. You can keep saying "Learn what condone means.", despite the fact that you are trying to make up definitions, and I'll keep pasting this;

Do you see a difference between "Child rape exists, I accept that." and "Child rape is acceptable as an act."? Yes or no?

The more you blatantly ignore a civil request, the worse you look. Now, though, you've more or less confirmed in hardcore truth why you won't answer it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
That would be you doing that. and now you're projecting.

I'm asking a simple question that you are well and truly soiling yourself over. Nothing more.

Do you see a difference between "Child rape exists, I accept that." and "Child rape is acceptable as an act."? Yes or no?

Originally posted by Creshosk
It doesn't matter how many times you post a definition if you don't understand it.

I understand it, and all your pages of telling me and Schecter that we've got it wrong are for nought, proof being that you won't answer this:

Do you see a difference between "Child rape exists, I accept that." and "Child rape is acceptable as an act."? Yes or no?

I will tell YOU for a fact why YOU will not answer it. You know the answer is "Yes.", so by doing that, you clearly define "Condoning." different to acceptance, which you PREVIOUSLY and for the past million pages, have claimed were the same thing.

Be nice if you were a man and admitted it though.

Originally posted by Creshosk
prove it.

You believe the entire DHS organisation were pro-WTM's relatives being raped? More of an idiot than I thought.

You are trying to change what she originally meant, then use your new definition of her event to formulate an irrelevant argument. You're failing miserably.

Oh...and:

Do you see a difference between "Child rape exists, I accept that." and "Child rape is acceptable as an act."? Yes or no?

Originally posted by Creshosk
And the hypothetical is that she's telling the truth remember? Of course not, you forget that detail whenever its inconveinent for you, just like you do with everything else.

But this isn't a hypothetical thread, she's actually claiming this happened, so why are you insisting on random hypotheticals? While we're at it why don't we assume she raped her own kids in front of the DHS and assume they were playing office basketball while this happened, thus not seeing it?

The situation she posted she would claim is true, not hypothetical. I don't believe her, I don't believe anything of the sort ever happened.

Originally posted by Creshosk
No. I don't want abortions to happen. but they are the lesser of the two evils. I'm pro-choice despite not wanting abortions to happen.

Well done for walking right into it.

So by that rationale you do, undeniably, confirm that you can accept the existence of something without condoning it and therefore your previous argument based around your own misinterpretation of "Condone." is 100% grade A b-b-b-bullshite.

Originally posted by Creshosk
And its clear that you're ignoring the hypothetical of her telling the truth... again. Why is that? Is it because it doesn't suit your argument? That it proves you wrong?

A) Nothing proves me wrong that has ever come out of your...keyboard.

B) It's not a hypothetical situation and even if it was, you've twisted her original post, which was already highly sensationalised and containing a million and one different stories of various abuse cases, and used it for something entirely different.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Funny that.

Comedy club's looking for you.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Irrelivent. You're failing to convince me so are making red herring.

I don't care if I'm failing to convince you or not. Your agreement isn't needed. Did you actually think I am after your agreement on the definition of the word? Hahahahaha.

No, no. I'm right because the very proof you're attempting to use, the dictionary, proves it. You don't need to agree, I don't need it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
"denial" isn't just a rvier in egypt.

The Nile is the river, not "Denial". Denial is what you're drowning in...like a...OH I GET IT.

Originally posted by Creshosk
They don't actually agree with you. But I guess you lack the reading comprehension to realize that.

I pasted it about ten times, highlighting why, with examples, you are getting it wrong. Further backed up by you not answering my question, cos you KNOW I am right.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Remember that oh-so-inconvienent hypothetical? No, of course not, it doesn't suit your argument.

I'm not indulging the pathetic hypothetical you brought into this thread, I'm indulging WTM's original post.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Sure you haven't. You're nerver wrong, you're always right, and you'll always be right. Even when facts aren't on yourside, you're right because your ego says you have to be.

Fact are on my side, you've even proven it.

I've never said such about myself, but thanks for the compliment. I appreciate that. You are the one doing what you claim I am, must be some kind of self-hatred thing.

-AC

Originally posted by Creshosk
And you use factually incorrectly .. as factually it is. Dictionary definition says so... remember the one entry where the best you could do is attack the example? "Oh noes! It sez SEEMED! dictionary wwonr, me right. you dumb for disagreeing with all mighty AC! All bow before him massive penis."

Thanks again for all the nice compliments.

I love how out of all the definitions you posted, you picked ONE that you think disagreed with me because you couldn't comprehend that maybe you f*cked up the definition. It quite clearly states in the example that something SEEMED to condone, not that it actually was. I'm not saying the definition is wrong, just that you have all the literary application skills of a jungle sloth.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Peanut butter... it tastes good and is good for you.

I'll take that as a "Yes, there is a difference.".

Wait, you accept abortion's existence, so therefore....by YOUR rationale...you must condone the act. If they're the same, if YOUR definition is so correct and I am absolutely not misunderstanding it. Your ACCEPTANCE of abortion is SEEMING as though you CONDONE the act. So, wow, must be, eh?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Uhuh! Remember I had to have been serious and not sarcastic or facetious.

So this is where I grab the quote and you say "HAH! I WAS JOKING!". So predictable and honestly so shameful, but whatever.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Projecting again. You're the biggest weasel. Deny it all you want, you know deep down its true... unless you're too stupid to realize that you are. Are you too stupid to realize you are?

You've already agreed with me. You accept abortion, you don't condone it...so my definition was right and you were wrong to say the two are the same. OR...OR...going by the one definition you're clinging to, by ACCEPTING it...it SEEMS like you CONDONE it...so therefore you must...right? No. So again you've f*cked up.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Yes, its stupid to stick to a hypothetical that was set up... they prove aC wrong therefore they're stupid.

You do realise this isn't a hypothetical thread...right? She actually claimed this happened. Or do you expect to waltz in here, interrupt a debate and expect everyone to discuss something you just made up?

I'm not ignoring it because it "proves" me wrong, I'm ignoring it because it's all you have. On topic, you're losing, like you lose every debate you enter.

Originally posted by Creshosk
And you say I'm the biggest weasel.

It's your KMC rep.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Call me stupid now and that will be your MO.

'Course not

Originally posted by Creshosk
"Your wrong, and you're stupid for disagreeing with me."

Its all your arguments EVER boil down to. Is calling something you disagree with stupid, and telling people they're wrong.

Every argument I've ever debated with you in has resulted in you swaying off topic, introducing an entirely irrelevant proposition and then trying to belittle people for not following it. You cannot debate for the life of you, hence why I've reduced you to massive ad hominem and talking about my penis, which you evidently like.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Oh yeah, and blindly saying that the facts agree with you, even when they clearly do not.

They do.

-AC

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Recently my sister and her husband split up, My sister got the kids. Soon after my oldest niece and second oldest, 6 and 4, tells my Mother and there Mommy that daddy "touched " them. My sister was in Oklahoma at the time she found out so drove straight back to Texas to report it to the DHS and police. They found evidence to support the girls claim! BUT My brother in law still gets to take the girls on the weekend due to the DHS saying until the girls tell them in writing that he did touch them and where, They will not file charges on him. How can a child be safe from such acts when our law system wont do anything about it. So...why don't the girls tell them in writing?

Oh God, this thread is horrible. We do all realize that in case this guy is innocent...and the girls and the mother lied about it, it would be wrong for the DHS to act upon such a lie. You guys seem to assume that it's always better to first punish the person and then see whether they were guilty, I am rather glad the laws disagree.


Also:

" until the girls tell them in writing that he did touch them and where, They will not file charges on him"

W-why don't they just do that?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
*snip* "You're wrong. You're stupid. The facts agree with me!"

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
*snip* "You're wrong. You're stupid. The facts agree with me!"

Look, I'm a carbon copy of Alpha Centauri now!

"You're wrong. You're stupid. The facts agree with me!"

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh God, this thread is horrible. We do all realize that in case this guy is innocent...and the girls and the mother lied about it, it would be wrong for the DHS to act upon such a lie. You guys seem to assume that it's always better to first punish the person and then see whether they were guilty, I am rather glad the laws disagree.


Also:

" until the girls tell them in writing that he did touch them and where, They will not file charges on him"

W-why don't they just do that?

"Soon after my oldest niece and second oldest, 6 and 4,"

I'm sure that they could adequetly explain what happened. I'm not even sure if they're literate. DHS should have investigated. Not necciserily arrest the guy or anything...

Ladies and gentleman, Creshosk.

Grand Weasel of KMC. Or better yet, squirrel. When times get hard, he runs off with his nuts.

Cresh? That last post isn't as long, it contains everything you asked for as well as additional stuff, why not reply to it? You asked for it.

-AC

Alpha Centauri This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click

I really need to learn to stop taking you off of ignore. It's impossible for me to have a civilized discourse with you. even if they start out that way, you slowly start with the insults. To which I always reciprocate, until it becomes something ugly.

Originally posted by Schecter
1- i like to refer to that as 'failed reverse psychology'
2- see '1'
3- sometimes ignore is simply necessary. depends on its usage. when someone uses it to avoid a point and claim some sort of win, its a pathetic tool. however when dealing with a troll or someone who proves to only be abrasive yet has nothing to add to any discussion,it can be useful.

i mostly use the ignore function for the 'jeckyl and hyde' members. these are the ones who will lead you into a reasonable discussion and then suddenly flip out and morph into a troll, spewing insults and accusations left and right. i find its best to avoid their baiting and switching all together...nip it in the bud, so to speak.

what i forgot to add cresh, is that while its a courtesy to inform the ignoree that they will not be heard (so they might not waste their energy), its not very mature to continue baiting/arguing someone from behind the ignore function. in fact at this moment you are using the ignore function to annoy, rather than prevent your own annoyance.

its your right to ignore whomever you please. but 'shit or get off the pot', is what im saying

Originally posted by Schecter
what i forgot to add cresh, is that while its a courtesy to inform the ignoree that they will not be heard (so they might not waste their energy), its not very mature to continue baiting/arguing someone from behind the ignore function. in fact at this moment you are using the ignore function to annoy, rather than prevent your own annoyance.

its your right to ignore whomever you please. but 'shit or get off the pot', is what im saying I understand. I'm going to try and not respond to him, or even talk about him beyond this.

I gave him a reason: "We cannot seem to be civil to each other; therefore ignoring one another because our interactions never turn out well is probably for the best."

It's not about civility, you requested the replies, I gave them, and rather than admit wrong you conveniently decide I'm to be put on ignore.

Good way to admit wrong, but cowardly.

-AC

thats a copout ac. i dont recall him declaring victory or conceding.

Why should someone quite clearly in the wrong be spared that just because they refuse to admit it?

Not just him, I mean in general, but It's not fair that essentially he was happy to do what he said he didn't like doing until I gave him the proof he asked for, then it just so happened to be the moment he got "tired".

-AC

spared WHAT? you act like he's obligated to be paraded around with a dunce cap.

I'm not, I just fail to understand why this unspoken etiquette exists that if someone puts you on ignore, you cannot claim it might be because they know they are wrong, and it's pretty evident why he did so.

I fail to see how me pointing that out is a copout. Especially since to my last replies he just posted three times in a row of needless trolling. Granted I perhaps should have said "Good way to avoid admitting wrong." rather than "Good way to admit wrong.", but the point is the same.

-AC

etiquette went out the window when the first insult was flung a few pages back. since then its been 50% valid points and 50% insults and jabs from both of you. perhaps this would have concluded better if this wasnt the case. i think you were in the right, actually, in reference to your points.

Points, AC was right.
The way he goes about delivering them is wrong.

Not necessarily.

Sometimes, of course, don't we all?

-AC

well, yes. its just that for most of us, our angry rebuttals occupy all but 3 or 4 lines. yours seem to consume 3 or 4 pages. (the 2 of you, i mean)

And it' s counterproductive for the members whose time and energy is limited, and have to wade through those posts.

Now get back on topic please.

Originally posted by Storm
And it' s counterproductive for the members whose time and energy is limited, and have to wade through those posts.

Now get back on topic please.

Well said Storm!!

please dont slobber on the mods

Originally posted by Schecter
please dont slobber on the mods

Expressing agreement = slobbering? Not really.

Originally posted by Creshosk
"Soon after my oldest niece and second oldest, 6 and 4,"

I'm sure that they could adequetly explain what happened. I'm not even sure if they're literate. DHS should have investigated. Not necciserily arrest the guy or anything... I assume they don't want an essay of a 4 year old.

But they would take action if the proper actions were taken.

Originally posted by Storm
And it' s counterproductive for the members whose time and energy is limited, and have to wade through those posts.

Now get back on topic please.

If your time and energy are limited then your choice to wade through the posts is somewhat your own fault.

Not yours, in general.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If your time and energy are limited then your choice to wade through the posts is somewhat your own fault.

Not yours, in general.

-AC

-AC all Storm pointed out is a very long post is not always needed.

Verbosity is not always the way to get your point across. Why the need for constant repitition of the same argument thorought your post, and the overanalyzing of very minor points?

It makes following in a thread a boring task.