Obama nominates child molesting homo for Secretary of the Army

[CabinetMaker]

Nick (and I and others) see a self admitted pervert and assume he engages in other perversions that are not yet socially acceptable

And then you willingly and joyfully commit slander and libel by sharing your opinions on a public forum.

Anna and Cabinetmaker see a self admitted pervert and assume that his perversions are limited to the single one to which he has admitted

We see a sinner in no less need of God's love and forgiveness than we were.

Oddly enough, my responses in this thread are not about Fanning's sins, they are about yours and Nick's and others sins. That he is a self proclaimed homosexual in no way makes it acceptable to out right lie about his character. You have no idea if he has ever assaulted a child yet you spread lies that he has. That is despicable behavior for one who calls himself a believer in God's love, mercy and forgiveness.

 

[CabinetMaker]

by percentage or by whole numbers?

because homos only make up less than 4% of the total population

There are three kinds of liars, there are liars, there are damn liars and there are statisticians. I think you are trying to prove something using statistics that you can manipulate to your own ends.

Here is an interesting paper that discusses the topic in some detail.

 

[ok doser]

You have no idea if he has ever assaulted a child yet you spread lies that he has.

if it's a lie, prove it :idunno:

 

[CabinetMaker]

if it's a lie, prove it :idunno:

Sorry, but under the legal system we have you have made a positive claim, you have the obligation to prove what you claim is true. This is an important concept that you should understand. Using your logic, you are a child molester because I cannot prove that you have never molested a child. You are a rapist because I cannot prove that you have never raped a woman. Your logic is based on guilty until proven innocent. Do you want to live under such a system where I can accuse of some heinous crime and everybody looks at you as a guilty man until you can prove that you did not do something?

 

[ok doser]

Sorry, but under the legal system ...

I'm not talking about the legal system, cabinetmaker - I'm talking about you


you are claiming that nick and I are lying, but you are unable to prove it

 

[CabinetMaker]

I'm not talking about the legal system, cabinetmaker - I'm talking about you


you are claiming that nick and I are lying, but you are unable to prove it

Do you or Nick have direct knowledge that Fanning has sexually molested a child? Have you or Nick actually witnessed Fanning acting in any way inappropriate with a child?

 

[ok doser]

Do you or Nick have direct knowledge that Fanning has sexually molested a child?

irrelevant - you claimed we were lying, now prove it

Have you or Nick actually witnessed Fanning acting in any way inappropriate with a child?

irrelevant - you claimed we were lying, now prove it

 

[CabinetMaker]

irrelevant - you claimed we were lying, now prove it



irrelevant - you claimed we were lying, now prove it

One of the methods used to determine truth is questioning the people involved. I asked you a question about your specific knowledge of the accusations you have made. If you can answer the question with the evidence that what you say is true, then I am wrong. If you cannot answer the question because you do not posses the knowledge that I asked you about, you are guilty of the lie. Which is it? Do have the knowledge that Fanning has actually molested children or not?

 

[ok doser]

One of the methods used to determine truth is questioning the people involved.

ok



you made the accusation that Nick and I are lying



Can you prove that we are lying?

 

[CabinetMaker]

ok



you made the accusation that Nick and I are lying



Can you prove that we are lying?

If you have the integrity to honestly answer these two questions honestly, yes.
Do you or Nick have direct knowledge that Fanning has sexually molested a child?
Have you or Nick actually witnessed Fanning acting in any way inappropriate with a child?

 

[ok doser]

Can you prove that we are lying?

.. yes.

then prove it

 

[CabinetMaker]

then prove it

In point of fact, I already have. Your refusal to answer the questions regarding your claims regarding Fanning are proof that you do not have any direct knowledge of Fanning molesting children.

Your claim is that I lied when I accused you and Nick of making slanderous claims against Fanning regarding him being a child molester. You made a direct, positive claim that Fanning IS a child molester. When I asked you to support your claim, you refused by attempting to claim that you having direct knowledge on Fanning molesting children is not relevant. You make a statement that you cannot support and attempt to claim that it is not relevant. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound right now?

 

[ok doser]

In point of fact, I already have.

no, CM, you haven't

you've made an accusation that you can't support, based on an assumption you've made and now you're doubling down, claiming that your unprovable assumption is support for your claim

Your refusal to answer the questions regarding your claims regarding Fanning are proof...

...of absolutely nothing

 

[CabinetMaker]

no, CM, you haven't

you've made an accusation that you can't support, based on an assumption you've made and now you're doubling down, claiming that your unprovable assumption is support for your claim

I have supported it. You cannot give witness before God that you have direct knowledge of what you accuse Fanning of doing. Are you willing to stand up here, before God and your peers on this forum, and state categorically that you have direct knowledge that Fanning is a pedophile?

...of absolutely nothing

As you said, this is not a legal proceeding, its just a public forum. As such, people look your answers and see clearly that you won't answer a very simple and very direct question.

 

[ok doser]

I have supported it.

with assumptions

not proof

you won't answer a very simple and very direct question.

you accused Nick and me of lying, without proof, based on an assumption

now you want me to prove your assumption is true?


stripe was right:

You're a retard.

 

[Rusha]

Do you or Nick have direct knowledge that Fanning has sexually molested a child? Have you or Nick actually witnessed Fanning acting in any way inappropriate with a child?

Interestingly enough, anyone who is truly interested in protecting these alleged victims by virtue of their *claimed* knowledge of criminal activity would be morally required AND expected to file a report with their local police department notifying them of these *alleged* crimes. I wonder why that hasn't been done? :think:

 

[CabinetMaker]

with assumptions

not proof

You made assumptions without proof regarding Fenning. Why is it acceptable for you to accuse somebody without proof but unacceptable to accuse you without proof? Can you say double standard.

you

accused Nick and me of lying, without proof, based on an assumption

now you want me to prove your assumption is true?

You already have. Lest you forget, let me remind you of the thread title" Obama-nominates-child-molesting-homo-for-Secretary-of-the-Army. That was Nick's title for the thread. Do you disagree with him?

stripe was right:

Almost never.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Interestingly enough, anyone who is truly interested in protecting these alleged victims by virtue of their *claimed* knowledge of criminal activity would be morally required AND expected to file a report with their local police department notifying them of these *alleged* crimes. I wonder why that hasn't been done? :think:

Why would a Christian charged with protecting the weak ignore the plight of these children if they have direct knowledge that would stop it?

 

[ok doser]

You made assumptions without proof regarding Fenning.

no, that's just your assumption - that I (and Nick) don't have proof

you're calling us liars based solely on your assumptions that we don't have proof

 

[Rusha]

Why would a Christian charged with protecting the weak ignore the plight of these children if they have direct knowledge that would stop it?

They wouldn't. This isn't about protecting children, but rather about making noise.