DHS view on local Child abuse case

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.

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.

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.

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!".

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.

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.

"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.

"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

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
with regards to my own personal stance and I did not, I factually proved this with examples.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?