DHS view on local Child abuse case

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There are reasons they may have overlooked it that do not constitute condoning it as an acceptable act.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not attacking the dictionary, it proves YOU wrong.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You told me that apathy IS acceptance and condoning. It is not, fact.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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 Alpha Centauri
So basically you are reading between the lines and getting what you want, not reading the actual lines?

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.

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.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are the one assuming they turned a blind eye because that's what WTM is saying.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not, fact. The dictionaries you posted actually agree with me,

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
and you are assuming that's what happened in this case.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I haven't actually been proven wrong.

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.

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."?

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?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're denying you said that?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't need you to, you're wrong.

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.

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.

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.[/b[]/quote] Yes, the quote is stupid because it differes from your oopinion... got it, ya weasel you.

[QUOTE=9605462]Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
[B] 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.

"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.

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

Classic AC (copy and paste and you can be just like him)
"You're wrong. You're stupid. The facts agree with me!"

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Leave the thread then.

-AC

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
[B]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

Oddly, this last post is the most important of them all, because it's me not indulging your penis talk and attempts to drag something away from point. So since you've already agreed with me that there's a difference, then denied it, I'll prove it again. You can reply to the previous two posts to boost your count, I've condensed everything that matters into this, so I'll reply to whatever you reply to out of this. I don't wish to discuss my penis with you anymore.

Oh, I forgot, here's the quote where you said acceptance and condoning are the same thing:

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

You then went on to reply to Schecter, who correctly informed you that not taking action does not imply condoning something;

Originally posted by Creshosk
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:

*Link to Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition**

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.

"For me...", "That's how I define...".

Guess what? You don't get to decide. The dictionary does. And the link YOU provided says this:

con·done, con·doned, con·don·ing

To regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless. Eg; A government accused of condoning racism, condone corruption in politics.

So as we can see, the one dictionary definition you rabidly cling to says that condoning is treating something bad or blameworthy as ACCEPTABLE, FORGIVABLE or HARMLESS.

The DHS are not treating child rape as acceptable, forgivable or harmless. I was never treating it as those either. What I WAS doing, as the DHS do, was accepting its existence and suggesting that it's naive to assume we can eradicate it from the world, not that it was acceptable, forgivable or harmless as an act.

So what you can do now, is you can reply to everything I've posted, talk about my penis, continue telling me how I'm wrong despite the dictionary you quote proving me right, as I've just said, and weasel some more.

You're wrong, deal with it. It has nothing to do with me, everything to do with fact.

"For me it means!", "I DEFINE IT AS!" no, Cresh.

So, to recap; you agree. How? Because you accept abortion's existence, you do not treat it as an acceptable act, a harmless act or a forgivable act, do you? Hence the two (Acceptance and condoning) being different.

Furthermore, here's your initial argument:

Originally posted by Creshosk
He's proven to be dangerous in this regard, and DHS disregards the claims.

That is your whole basis of "They condone it.". Not doing enough, and by those actions, allowing it to continue, does not constitute condoning it.

*Awaits massive weaselling*

-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.

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*

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
*snip*

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 [here]

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 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.