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.
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.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriBecause until the girls file it in writing DHS won't do anything.
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
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?
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
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriThere is a thought process behind it. "by remaining silent you indirectly help the agressor."
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?
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 CentauriYou don't have to openly promote something to be pro-for it.
They are not sitting there being enthusiastic about raping children.
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 CentauriI'm not commenting on wether it happened or not, just the logistics of the thought prcess of calling them "pro-childrape"
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
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."
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
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.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYou know what "turning a blind eye" is right?
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 Alpha CentauriAccepts. Yes. Otherwise, hypothetically speaking they would have taken a more proactive approach to a crime being committed.
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.
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 CentauriCondone. Yes. Obviously if her situation were true then they are "excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with " child abuse.
DOES her posted situation suggest that the entire DHS are paedophiles who like, enjoy or condone child rape? Yes or no?
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriOR stupid for thinking they aren't... You do know the meanings of the words you try to use, yes?
Not liking the way they handle it doesn't mean they are all enjoying this. Stupid to think they are.
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 CentauriApathy is acceptence and condoning. Both of which you listed prior.
Apathy does not mean guilt.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriIt's stupid to state that they are for something, based on the criteria you listed?
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.
*tsk* You stirke me as acting rather naive at this conjuncture. That or ignorant of the words you use.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYes on two counts.
Once more:Does the situation she stated mean that the whole organisation condones, accepts or enjoys child rape? Yes or no?
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYes.
Yes....or no?
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriI am. Do you ven know the words you use?
No bs about "YOU DON'T NEED TO OPENLY PROMOTE IT!", be realistic.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriCorrect. Condoning is excusing it, overlooking it, making allowances for it or to be lenient with it.
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 Alpha CentauriNaive.
Not really.-AC
