You just cut a statement in half, and responded as if the second half didn’t exist. Therefore, your intent was to convey the impression the second half never exists. Therefore, you lied.

Oh, please. This is a typical tactic when you find you’ve been caught on even a minor item. Claim the person is lying, that you were quoted out of context, that the person intended (I’m going to start keeping a record of the number of times you’ve told me what was in my mind. I just keep forgetting that you know what I’m thinking better than I am.) to give a false impression.

By your apparent standard I should call you a liar because you referred to the second “half” when it was actually 13 words of a 23 word sentence.

I quoted the relevant part. Your question as to whether I should be allowed to speculate without any direct evidence. My reply was specifically to that. That speculation, by definition, is done without direct evidence.

Sean: “Yeah, I am.”

You are a liar.

You just cut a statement in half, and responded as if the second half didn’t exist. Therefore, your intent was to convey the impression the second half never exists. Therefore, you lied.

My question wasn’t whether or not you are allowed to speculate, it was whether were applying the similar burdens in similar situations.

CSS: “That is a serious question, not a Cavuto [A what?? - SDM].”

A Cavuto, named after Neil Cavuto of Fox News. It’s what you call it when someone asks a question not to gain information, but to make an accusation without being held accountable.

It’s another way of lying, or to be more specific, a way of setting up a lie, much like weasel words. (‘I didn’t actually say that, I was merely asking a question.’)

“Yes, I think it will. Obviously it already has. But I don’t think it’s something that alone should prompt and investigation of the parents.”

There we disagree.

The burden of evidence for starting an investigation like this is rather low, and it should be, because the consequences of investigating and finding nothing are far smaller than not investing when you should have.

Speculate, v:
- to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively
- to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence, to theorize
- talk over conjecturally, or review in an idle or casual way and with an element of doubt or without sufficient reason to reach a conclusion

Yeah, I am.

Look, human nature is such that when someone has been designated by the crowd as being outcast folks tend to feel it is okay to then further dump on them. When everyone points and says “We don’t want you in our neighborhood” someone will feel it’s okay to throw rocks through windows.

Have I got any direct evidence that whoever accused the Campbells of abuse really did it because they didn’t like what they’d named their kid? Of course not, and I never said otherwise. I speculated that it’s a possiblity.

CSS: That is a serious question, not a Cavuto [A what?? - SDM]. I want to make sure I have your position clear.

Also a serious question, do you not think being name Adolf Hitler is going to cause this child problems later in life? I can see him being beaten up as a direct result of this name.

Yes, I think it will. Obviously it already has. But I don’t think it’s something that alone should prompt and investigation of the parents.

So you are allowed to speculate without any direct evidence, but naming a kid Unwanted would not be enough to warrant further investigation.

That is a serious question, not a Cavuto. I want to make sure I have your position clear.

Also a serious question, do you not think being name Adolf Hitler is going to cause this child problems later in life? I can see him being beaten up as a direct result of this name.

Surprisingly, this is not the first thread we’ve debated it.

SFC B called me racist in another thread, because I mentioned genocide as a reason for going into the former Yugoslavia. However, when I mentioned that, I failed to mention the unrelated genocide in Rwanda, so he said I didn’t think killing black people was worth stopping. This is clearly lying.

He’s doing the same thing here, only less extreme.

For instance, he said…

SFC B: “I’d said before in an earlier thread on this topic. Are poor people with unpopular opinions really a group which Democrats think should have their kids taken from?”

No one said this. No one even hinted at this.

He took what was said, twisted it (i.e. lied) and accused the other side (including me) of saying something we did not say.

Got it?

SFC B has made a grand total of three posts to this thread and only refers to you in the latter two. In both of those he you’re quoted directly and then asked some questions. Where’s the lying about what you’re saying?

Or is this just your way of not having to answer? Claim the other guy is lying so you can make a hasty exit.

Could you please stop lying about what I say? It is pointless to talk to you if you can’t be honest in this debate.

To join daniel in being off topic for a moment, regarding Michael Newbow I have to wonder who are all these wonderful folks who would harass a child for the father’s attempts to support the Constitution.

SFC B, would I be safe to assume that you support Newbow’s efforts since you “DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.” ??

I know this is OT, but I don’t want to let the above quote pass. Mr. Newdow is not leading a “campaign against religion” but a “campaign” in favor the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (which was violated when “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954).

Gee, I think I explained that. Not surprised you and Sean are too fucking stupid to understand.

IT IS EMOTIONAL ABUSE.

CSS, so, naming your child something many consider evil or dumb is evidence of emotional abuse. What about parents who dress their children in ugly clothes? They’re exposing them to the possibility to ridiclue by their peers. That’s emotionally abusive. Should parents with poor fashion taste be at risk of having their kids taken away because they exposed them to such scarring abuse?

Heck, what about parents who send their children to religious schools where they learn about the possibility they might be facing an eternity of damnation if they’re not meeting some defition of “good”. How damaging could it be for a young child to have to face the possibilty of forever in Hell? Could that be a reason to take children from their parents? Could Michael Newdow get his ex-wife charged with child abuse because she takes their child to churh? Heck, could Michael Newbow face abuse charges because, in his campaign against religion, he’s exposed his child to harassment, to the point where she can’t stay with him?

I’d like to see where I actually said it was the case.

I was clear that I was speculating (“might have”). My speculation is based on familiarity with human nature.

Quaker in a Basement: “What makes you think so?”

I too would like to see what evidence he has to support that.

There are fucking government agencies set up to decide this shit.

“I don’t think anyone here has suggested that the child’s name is the reason the kids were taken. Well, CSS does think parental name choice is sufficient cause for an investigation. But even he didn’t say that is the reason the kids were taken.”

Yes. I think if you name your kid “Unwanted”, then you should be investigated for potential child abuse. I don’t think this is a controversial statement.

I’m not talking about unusual names. I’m talking about names that could cause the kid real problems later in life. Adolf Hitler qualifies. If a kid’s name is Adolf Hitler, he’s going to get his ass kicked at least once because of that. Unwanted is going to cause the kid emotional distress.

Parental rights are not absolute, because there are other human beings involved.

I’m not saying that is so. I was just noting the possibility that some folks (like their landlord and whoever filed the complaint) may feel the Campbells are fair game and it is OK to pile on them because of what they named their kid.

“In the meantime, their landlord wants to evict them and their children are taken because someone alleges child and spousal abuse. I suspect there are folks out there who don’t think they should be free to name their child as they wish.”

CSS graciously provided proof of the letter sentence.

What makes you think so?

I don’t think anyone here has suggested that the child’s name is the reason the kids were taken. Well, CSS does think parental name choice is sufficient cause for an investigation. But even he didn’t say that is the reason the kids were taken.

But the closest anyone has come to suggesting that might be the case was probably me: “their children are taken because someone alleges child and spousal abuse. I suspect there are folks out there who don’t think they should be free to name their child as they wish.”

But I wasn’t suggesting the Child Services took them because someone complained about the name. Rather that who ever filed the abuse report might have actually been motivated by the name but knew that wouldn’t be considered a legitimate reason so made up a different complaint of abuse.

THANK you. That’s what I’ve been saying since this started.

Unless something has changed recently, we don’t know the basis for the complaint against the parents. If anyone has read somewhere that social services took the kids just because of the names they were given, I’d like to see that.

Not until you learn how to follow instruction.

There, I answered. Happy now?

IT IS EMOTIONAL ABUSE.

Which you seem to be quite familiar with.

But I repeat: Who gets to decide? Would Genghis Kahn Martin not pass your smell test? Should you be subject to investigation solely because you named you kid Joseph Mengele Strowbridge?