McCain against (legislation to) protect children from sexual predators.

[rn79870]

This is NOT a "proactive plan to protect children from abuse". It's legislation to extend sex education to kindergarten and elementary students.

Show me YOUR PLAN as a parent to protect YOUR children from sexual predators.

You don't have one?

Unfortunitely, many times it's one of the parents who is the abuser.So, I take it McCain isn't proactive in protecting children from sexual abuse, am I wrong?

[AZhitman]

This helps prove my point that McCain is not proactive with respect to preventing sexual abuse.

Apparently, Obama is not proactive with respect to preventing date rape.

He's also not proactive with respect to preventing hate crimes against transvestites.

Let's see...

He's not proactive with respect to ensuring kids don't eat poisoned halloween candy (OMG where is your PLAN?)

Not proactive with respect to reducing underage drinking.

Not proactive with respect to preventing teen fatalities on the highways.

Not proactive with respect to....

...shall I continue?

[rn79870]

Obama hasn't attacked McCain's efforts in any of the areas you mentioned.McCain has attacked Obama's efforts with respect to proactive child abuse prevention. Does McCain not favor proactively attacking sexual abuse of minors? If so, why is he attacking someone who is trying to do just that?

[szh]

This helps prove my point that McCain is not proactive with respect to preventing sexual abuse.

(So close!!! You are almost there!)

But, not logical enough yet ... neither Modus Ponens nor Modus Tollens can apply to the premise you started this thread with! Opposing a specific bit of legislation does not automagically imply McCain is for the the complete opposite of that legislation.

Maybe he does not [yet] have a proactive plan (not that I know of per se), but that does not somehow imply that he is opposed to protecting children from sexual predators.

But, now that you have come this far, please take that one additional step and acknowledge the flawed logic that you started with. Then we can begin to discuss what perhaps should be done for this very serious issue! No partisanship needed for that.

Z

[rn79870]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...owall

YOu'll have to read why CBS Made McCain take down a bad smear ad. McCain's trash is catching up with him.

[AZhitman]

Asked about the ad, CBS spokeswoman Leigh Farris said, "CBS News does not endorse any candidate in the Presidential race. Any use of CBS personnel in political advertising that suggests the contrary is misleading."

Yeah. Katie didn't show ANY partisanship in her pathetic attempt to "dance" with Mike Huckabee at the RNC. She got owned. No wonder her ratings suck.

[rn79870]

(So close!!! You are almost there!) ... Opposing a specific bit of legislation does not automatically imply McCain is for the the complete opposite of that legislation....

It does unless he states otherwise in his denunciation of the matter.

Maybe he does not [yet] have a proactive plan (not that I know of per se), but that does not somehow imply that he is opposed to protecting children from sexual predators.

If he doesn't have a plan (which he doesn't) and he opposes the only plan then he obviously has little concern for those children who are harmed in the interim.

But, now that you have come this far, please take that one additional step and acknowledge the flawed logic that you started with. Then we can begin to discuss what perhaps should be done for this very serious issue! No partisanship needed for that. Z

McCain attacked proactive legislation as foolish. Yet McCain offered nothing in return. That precipitates a strong suspicion that he doesn't care if children get abused. A wise man sees that even a little protection is better than none. How can someone support a man who doesn't support legislation to prevent sex abuse of kids?

[szh]

Quote »You'll have to read why CBS Made McCain take down a bad smear ad. McCain's trash is catching up with him. [/quote](Inaccurate smear ads - both sides - should be curtailed, I agree) ... but what does this have to do with this thread?

Z

[szh]

It does unless he states otherwise in his denunciation of the matter.

If he doesn't have a plan (which he doesn't) and he opposes the only plan then he obviously has little concern for those children who are harmed in the interim.

McCain attacked proactive legislation as foolish. Yet McCain offered nothing in return. That precipitates a strong suspicion that he doesn't care if children get abused. A wise man sees that even a little protection is better than none. How can someone support a man who doesn't support legislation to prevent sex abuse of kids?

Whoops! Back to flawed logic, I am afraid.

Not saying/supporting a negative/positive does not imply the opposite, Bob!

Z

[rn79870]

(Inaccurate smear ads - both sides - should be curtailed, I agree) ... but what does this have to do with this thread?

Z

We're trying to keep similar posts within similar threads. I don't think it is going to work, but we'll give it a fair shot.

[rn79870]

What you call flawed logic, many are calling obvious. But these people are not blinded by the truth...

[szh]

What you call flawed logic, many are calling obvious.

Then they don't know basic logic either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_Pone ... /D...edent

The concept of "formal fallacy" needs to be understood:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

But these people are not blinded by the truth...

Apparently, they like to stretch it.

Z

[rn79870]

It's more like mathematical precision.

McCain opposes only know plan for proactive child abuse prevention.PlusMcCain has no plan for proactive child abuse protection.PlusProactive child abuse prevention is something McCain doesn't/hasn't support(ed)EqualsSome could argue by his record, he supported it. At the best it is something that doesn't concern him.

[szh]

I cannot argue this anymore ... the "logic" in your post is so wrong that I will not make any headway at all.

So, I give up arguing here (note that this does not imply that I agree with you - that would be flawed logic too! ).

Z

[smockers83]

Not everyone has a plan for everything. Its next to impossible to devise a plan for every issue that confronts America.

The only one that sees the "obvious" is you, sorry to say it. You're the only one tootin the horn here. Its just as bad as telco posting something up blaming Bush that has absolutely nothing to do with Bush.

[audtatious]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5KeO10vjXs

[srellim234]

I've clearly proven that he not only doesn't support, but he has spoken agains the only plan that proactively addresses abuse of children. What you see or don't see doesn't change the fact.

You've proven he doesn't support Obama's plan. You have NOT proven McCain supports predation on kids.

McCain supports families teaching their kids right and wrong, what's appropriate and what isn't. And before you launch into your "families are often predators" excuse, remember that teachers are, too.

McCain supports tougher sentencing for sexual predators.

You appear to be so blinded by your passion for the issue that you are willing to resort to a Carl Rove tactic to try to win your point. JOHN McCAIN DOES NOT SUPPORT SEXUAL PREDATION ON KIDS. For many years he has supported, through his actions, a family based education for the kids and a tougher law and order penalty for the predators.

If you still don't understand the flaw in your logic, it's no longer worth trying to get through to you. Keep believing the lie.

[SmithSR]

JOHN McCAIN DOES NOT SUPPORT SEXUAL PREDATION ON KIDS. For many years he has supported, through his actions, a family based education for the kids and a tougher law and order penalty for the predators.

Quoted for clarity of thought.

[smockers83]

Yes, he didn't have a counter plan and he opposed supporting the one that was there. Therefore, he had no problem leaving the children vulnerable to sexual abuse.

Alright, lets ask this question. IIRC you are in sales, self-employed as I am (its a 1099 world now). Lets say you start having consecutive down weeks or months and you have ran out of ideas. If you're a business owner in that you have downlines, you may ask them for ideas and proposals on how to get out of the slump because it will benefit all of you. You get 2 ideas--1 just sucks in your opinion, 1 has legal implications. You reject both of them. Now here's the question. Because you rejected both plans, does that mean you're against getting out of slump and for staying in the slump? From using your logic insofar I could say that you would be for staying in the slump.

[dusred]

I thought the Sex ed for Kindergartners was a joke. This shouldn't even be an issue IMO.

It's ridiculous to say that because someone opposes something that they agree with the opposite.

It will be a cold day in hell before any of my kids are ever taught about sex that young. That is just simply too young.

Thanks for the Video, Matt.

[Jimefam]

rn79870 I am in favor of obamas plan and yet you are wrong in your conclusion that because mccain twisted a sound plan by obama that makes in him in favor of child abuse. Mccain is absolutely using obamas plan to play on the fears of social conservatives by making them think that obama is in favor of teaching 5 yr old kids how to F***. But it is a very large leap in logic to say that equates to support of child molesters, it is simply the current republican playbook(which works extremely well I might add). How someone equates teaching a child what is appropriate and inappropriate touching with sex ed is beyond me though.

[szh]

Not saying/supporting a negative/positive does not imply the opposite, Bob!

You've proven he doesn't support Obama's plan. You have NOT proven McCain supports predation on kids.

If you still don't understand the flaw in your logic, it's no longer worth trying to get through to you. Keep believing the lie.

You reject both of them. Now here's the question. Because you rejected both plans, does that mean you're against getting out of slump and for staying in the slump? From using your logic insofar I could say that you would be for staying in the slump.

Leftie reporting in. Bob is way off base here.

Over and out.

I am in favor of obamas plan and yet you are wrong in your conclusion that because mccain twisted a sound plan by obama that makes in him in favor of child abuse.

Guys, don't waste your breath trying to use analogies to explain.

Independent of party lines, whether you are Democrat or Republican, who you support, or wanna vote for, or wanna sling mud on, or not, etc., etc., etc., ... you cannot argue with emotional rejection of basic logic (the rules of which have only been around since before Aristotle - a few years before I was born)!

Z

[Jimefam]

If we gave up on replying to emotional responses not based on facts the posts in this forum would decrease by 90% atleast in my opinion. Very few people on this forum can have a discussion based exclusively on facts IMHO from what I have seen on here in the last two or so weeks I have come on here. Plus I still have a supreme respect for logic and have a hard time accepting that most people in this world are just ignorant or worse meanspirited.

[szh]

If we gave up on replying to emotional responses not based on facts the posts in this forum would decrease by 90% atleast in my opinion.

But, it might be a good thing, no?

Plus I still have a supreme respect for logic and have a hard time accepting that most people in this world are just ignorant or worse meanspirited.

You are probably an engineer/scientist like me, then ... correct? Or am I off-base?

Z

[Jimefam]

I wish. I am a financial advisor but have taken a break from that to help my family with their business as it has grown beyond their control. I would have loved to be a physicist though and plan to retire early to go back to school for it as pursue it as a hobby. What field are you in?

[szh]

I would have loved to be a physicist though and plan to retire early to go back to school for it as pursue it as a hobby.

Cool!

What field are you in?

Semiconductor physics for 18 years and wireless telecommunications for the last 12 ... having lots of fun!

Anyway ... back to the regular programming!

Z

[Jesda]

"Senator McCain, why don't you have a seat over here. I noticed you brought wine coolers. Did you know she was 14?"

[rn79870]

Independent of party lines, whether you are Democrat or Republican, who you support, or wanna vote for, or wanna sling mud on, or not, etc., etc., etc., ... you cannot argue with emotional rejection of basic logic (the rules of which have only been around since before Aristotle - a few years before I was born)!

Z

Oh, I thought you were describing McCain's response to Obama's plan.Funny thing, it's been 48 hours now. He's still running his negative ad and he's said nothing about the importance of protecting children. Could it really be that he is anti child protection. At first it was a suggestion, not it's a real possibility. I think maybe time will prove me right in this one.

[rn79870]

You've proven he doesn't support Obama's plan. You have NOT proven McCain supports predation on kids.

Not my place to prove it. i can't follow him around all the time. Besides, it's a strong suggestion yet minute after minute, when he doesn't respond, he's painting himself more and more into the corner.

McCain supports families teaching their kids right and wrong, what's appropriate and what isn't. And before you launch into your "families are often predators" excuse, remember that teachers are, too.

Yes, families are often the ones the children need protection from. Teachers, at least, go through an investigation process and typically do not have the opportunities to abuse children that are available to a parent or caregiver. It doesn't appear that you're informed on this issue.

I wonder why JM doesn't tell what you did? Sorry, but trustworthy as you are, you're the only source on the internet offering JM's position on child abuse, and that's not good enough.

McCain supports tougher sentencing for sexual predators.

NOT proactive maybe. Why not try and stop the problem. Why not save those children from years of abuse instead of merely punishing those who get caught. Punishment is fine, but it's not PROACTIVE.

You appear to be so blinded by your passion for the issue that you are willing to resort to a Carl Rove tactic to try to win your point. JOHN McCAIN DOES NOT SUPPORT SEXUAL PREDATION ON KIDS. For many years he has supported, through his actions, a family based education for the kids and a tougher law and order penalty for the predators.

Hey, he's a big boy. It's been 48 hours now and he's still critizing a proactive plan while offering no other plan, or even speaking on the idea. This is why he is seen as favoring child abuse. Come on John, are you for it or against it?

If you still don't understand the flaw in your logic, it's no longer worth trying to get through to you. Keep believing the lie.

So if we follow your logic, and he's really for child protection, but he's simply LYING to us about Obama's plan not being any good. OR he's a pro abuse candidate. Seriously, is he a liar or an abuser?

[rn79870]

Quoted for clarity of thought.

Unfortunitely, we don't accept other members opinions as citations. But nice try.