To All, and definately Dante

In my initial post, I was referring to a fair trials' finding's, when I said "providing".
Here's my original statement:
"Providing the court (in fair trial style) found that the dude did indeed molest, and did indeed upset the kid as a result, then, a bashing and no prison for anyone, in such circumstances, sounds about as good an example of justice that can possibly be."

But as the argument went on, Yes, I did show understanding for anyone who would react rashly if they felt sure something like this (a molestation on one of their beloved) took place. But do I think what most of our modern culture considers "molestation" should be treated nearly as offensive as it is currently being treated? Of course not. And do I believe we're living in a panicked overreacting time? Of course.

But nonetheless; I can understand people reacting rashly in such cases, especially if they're honestly sure that something like this has occured.

What the father did, by my standards, is wrong. And what the molestor did (and providing a fair trial determined he did it), is also wrong, by my standards, namely if it was against the kids' will.

But in hindsight, I suppose such a ruling could make way for a new terrible trend to begin, where people abuse the legal system; a trend where people pretend that someone has been molested, just to be able to get off scott-free with laying a beating on a pedophile who they may despise. So when taking this into consideration, I think it would have been better if the court implemented it's own punishment on the Dad, as well as on the molestor (providing it did find both guilty of such acts). And as for what punishment I feel would be reasonable for them to receive, I will just say this:
A.) Considerations should be made on behalf of the molestor, as to whether the molesting occured against the kids' will or not, and
B.) Considerations should be made for the fathers' emotional state when delivering the beating.

Anyways, I don't have all the answers. And I'm sorry if it seems like I do sometimes. In my original statement, I was just making a quick point on the story. It got taken a little out of context. People seem to have failed to realize that by my saying "providing", I was talking about a courts' fair-trial findings, not the Dad's justifications for his actions to be excusable.

Once again; Here's my original statement:
"Providing the dude did indeed molest, and did indeed upset the kid as a result, then, a bashing and no prison for anyone, in such circumstances, sounds about as good an example of justice that can possibly be."

And I still stand by the possibility that no court ruling may work out, in the long run, any better than the way this Aussie court ruled. But like I said, I don't have all the answers, and am not going to claim I know which ruling would prove best in the long run. But I do now acknowledge that such a ruling "COULD" make way for a new ugly trend to begin, for legal system abusers and pedo abusers.

Here's some alternate versions of my original statement that hold true to my originally-intended meaning:

* "Providing the dude did indeed molest, and did indeed upset the kid as a result, then, [it's understandable that a Dad would act rashly]."

* "Providing the court, [in fair trial style], found that the dude did indeed molest, and did indeed upset the kid as a result, then, a bashing and no prison for anyone, in such circumstances, sounds about as good an example of justice that can possibly be."

- But like I said, in light of my new findings (that such a ruling could make way for new ugly trends to begin), I would have to change (Yes, a sort of "do-over", Dante - Kill me why don't you!) my original post to the following:

"Providing the court (in fair trial style) found that the dude did indeed molest, and did indeed upset the kid as a result, then, a bashing and no prison for anyone, in such circumstances, sounds like the type of ruling that could start a new ugly trend for pedo-haters to abuse the legal system."

But maybe that's the plan. It's possible that this court wants such a trend to begin.

Who really knows? Very sad, too, obviously, if that is the case.

Dante, as for "my last paranoid ouburst" (as you called it), I apologize. But something bad happened, under very coincidential circumstances. And I won't talk about it here. If you want, I'll email you on it, after you respond to my latest reply to you in your cultic thread.