Re: What is and what ought to be

You:
Its easy for Stahntii's caveats to be based on "certainty." But we know that eyewitnesses and those who are emotionally involved are also more likely to feel certain when they're absolutely false; and still you have a dead or crippled innocent whose injury can never be undone.

Me:
Wtf is wrong with you? Did you not hear anything I said? I said "providing" - P R O V I D I N G - the kid was actually molested against his will.

But as for the judge voting for the case to be called "even-stevens", what was done was done.

So; from the fucking top, Dante.

1.) Providing the kid was actually molested against his will, I can perfectly understand the dad laying a beated right then and there, just as he did.

2.) Providing at the court hearing it was established, either by admission of guilt directly from the alleged molestor, or from the alleged molestor being tried and found guilty, the judges decision to call time-served for all, seems just to me.

But if the accused sis not admit molesting, or was not found guilty of such, then the judges decision is not just.

WTF is so hard to understand about that?

And I really don't appreciate your discreet attack on me, in your "thoughts on things cultic" post. That's real low. I thought you new me better than that.

And tell me something:
Do I have you to thank for the trojan virus I got????????!!!!!!!