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 chillmeistergenSo the source dictates the value and validity of an idea?
Don't bring that rubbish into the debate.
"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 LanaI'm well aware. I'm just attacking the notion of something being "rubbish" simply because it can be found in the bible.
The concept of killing being a bad thing has been around a lot longer than the bible, you realize.
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
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.
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.
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 CentauriI 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.
Yes, but I also want to know what your answer to my question is. Give it at any point.
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 CentauriDo you even know what that word means?
So we can agree they are not sitting there actually condoning it
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 CentauriSince 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.
or being FOR it, right? Then my point about the thread title being dumb and misleading was correct.
As it stands now you are not correct.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriThat was one of the criteria you listed before. That means that you are pro-evil by your own reasoning.
I accept that lots of evils exist,
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYou 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.
it doesn't mean I like them.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauriso speaking out against evil is still pointless?
It means I accept they will exist because to not do so is naive and if anything, prevents effective counter-action.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriANd what about NOT fighting it? Makeing excuses for it, what would that fall under?
Molestation will ALWAYS exist, it will NEVER end, so the best we can do is accept that and fight it wherever possible.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriGee... you're contradicting yourself again... That or you like to practice insanity.
Trying to cut it out for good, forever, is a dumb idea. Nice, idealistic idea, but an unrealistic one.
"fight it wherever possible."
"Trying to cut it out for good, forever, is a dumb idea."
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriAgain, you use the word condone. Go look it up before using it again.
You deduced that nonsense how? How does that mean the entire DHS enjoys, condones, or is PRO child RAPE?
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriI'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.
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.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYou 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?
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.
Again, Rehtorical question and socratic irony: do you even know what the word condone means?
Answer:
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYou're completely clueless as to what the word means.
Apathy is NOT both acceptance and condoning, it can be acceptance, it doesn't necessarily mean condoning.
Go grab a dictionary, and come back with the word that you actually mean.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriThat's making an excuse for it.
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.
"It'll happen anyway,"
That's makeing an excuse, that is condoning it. Go look the word up.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriHypocrisy at its finest. You have no clue what condone means and you're telling me to learn my words?
Learn your words.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYar. Cause of what the word condone means.
Says the man who believes being apathetic to something automatically means you condone it.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriShifting the accent? "No true scotsman"
If you are claiming the entire DHS are endorsing (Pro, remember)
Are you taking back condoning something being a requisite for being pro something?
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriThe 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.
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.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYours is based on your ignorance of what the word condone means.
Your entire argument is based on your inability to differentiate between acceptance and condoning an act.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYou misuse the word again.
People accept abortion who don't necessarily condone it.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYou lack the brains.
You lack the skills.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri😂 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?
Of course it doesn't you reactionary flip flopper.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriAgain, you misuse the word. and since the rest of your argument is based on misinformation, the rest of it is likewise invalid.
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.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriOf course not. 🙄 Cause hey, we can't even do an investigation based off of a claim unless they are actually guilty.
A family's word isn't good enough.
But since they're innocent until proven guilty, there's no need for an investigation.[/sarcasm]
Quit being stupid.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauriokay, then you're pure concentrated evil. Happy?
Naive? Naive is to believe evil can be stopped no matter what by "good men" doing "something".
Originally posted by Alpha Centauriby 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."
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
😂