Posted on 02/11/2002 5:06:42 PM PST by Petronski
Ahhhh......here we go, finally..........thank you Luis, I see I don't have any quarrel here. As was my point for the last two days, and some 900 posts later.
Don't worry about me, Luis...........I can take criticism where it is warranted.
There was a reason to my postings about Paul the apostle, and others whom some might regard as not 'worthy' of bringing the Word.
To those who say "cast the first stone" (snip), or things like that, I say "don't even try it"........
It doesn't take a 'special' person to call others to the floor if something is amiss................actually, it may even take the worst person imaginable (see Paul of Tarsus)........ahh, that God guy..........true enigma, huh? (laughing)
One last thing, something from your post struck me as I was walking the pooch a few minutes ago.
You wrote:
"The wages of sin is ____________?"
That is such an odd saying.
We ALL die, don't we?
There are so many posts, and we read them fast to go on to the next post. It is possible to make an error, rather than intentionally lie in responding to something...right?
So, if you perceived that I erred on your words, forgive me, please.
It is now clear that you, I and Rides a White Horse are all saying pretty much the same thing now. We are in agreement that sin is sin, and thank God for mercy and compassion.
I understand that sin against the innocents is very hard, because I too get more angry towards sin against innocents than I do adults.
Anger is not always bad. Anger against something can give rise to compassion. The Lord had compassion because He was angry that these things were as they were. Anger can give rise to action to resist those things which are bad. Anger at what happened to this child and this family can help us all to be more vigilant about protecting other children and other families.
I hope this is not another "unsolved case" and so will pray for justice in "this time" for little Danielle.
FACT: You cannot prove his source is wrong, either.
Free Republic is kind of a unique place. Articles from news sources are posted, and people come along, read them, and when the mood strikes them, they comment on those articles. There are all kinds of comments, from the informative (someone who might know about the subject matter) to the humorous all the way to--please note--the speculative.
On almost every thread, assuming there are any comments at all, someone is speculating about different aspects of the originally posted article.
On the Elian threads, for instance, you and I and many others speculated that there were backroom deals being made by the Clinton crime family and their cohorts. I didn't notice you flinching from that particular bit of speculation, even though that's all it was at the time. It turned out we were right (graft is always a safe guess with the Clintons), but nevertheless, we could have just as easily been maligning innocent people who were just doing their jobs in a proper manner. We had no hard evidence of our own.
As it happens, you and some others are speculating that there is nothing wrong with the parents' lifestyle and that it had nothing whatever to do with the child's disappearance. Others of us are speculating just the opposite. We're all speculating, yes, even you.
I'm really starting to take offense at all this mudslinging, simply because we're doing what is always done on Free Republic: we're reading the originally posted article from news sources, pointing out discrepancies in "official" stories and timelines, and posting our speculations about these. If you want the speculation to stop, I suspect you'd best write to Jim Robinson and ask him to disallow commentary on posted articles. I doubt that he will, but hey, it's your call.
And Luis, I would like to add that Jim Robinson has asked us not to use this board for personal attacks. Liar is an ugly word, and not necessarily true in this instance, since most of us--including you--are speculating about what might have happened that night. Debate is one thing, but now it's getting personal, and it shouldn't.
You're not going to win this debate by being the ugliest, or with the "my font is bigger than your font" ploy. The people who will win this debate will be the ones who speculated most correctly about what really happened. Your side or ours, one will certainly eat crow, but let me say that it's going to taste most bitter for those who departed from mere debate and chose the personal attack route instead. Just a thought for all of us to ponder.
You've essentially attacked the speculation that the family life is unhealthy and might have contributed to the child's disappearance. Others of us have attacked the sepculation that there is nothing whatever wrong with the family life, and that even if there were, it wouldn't have contributed to the child's disappearance. You know just as little as anyone else, and your speculations hold no more value than anyone else's (or less, for that matter).
Tell you what, I'll make up some lies about you, pass it on to a few FReepers, and ask them not to divulge the source.
You will call the rumour a lie, and you will be unable to prove that rumour wrong.
Nice!
I've done no such thing.
These people are normally heterosexuals who want to be promiscuous. There is really nothing "perverted" about their sexual preferences.
Immoral? Perhaps that would be a better word, as the problem with the actions of a swinging couple clash with Christian norms.
Ok, Luis, what are you saying here, then? That you think what this couple is doing is reprehensible, irresponsible, and likely contributory to the loss of their child? I re-read the post, and I don't see that. But then, perhaps you're using Clinton-speak, and the meaning of "is" and "nothing perverted" is up for debate.
A credible news reporter and law enforcement officer will not often risk their careers reporting "made up lies."
The neighbor under suspicion has also given statements on the Van Dams swinging and parties. Perhaps he is not as credible, as he is a suspect, but yet, that is another piece.
The Van Dams have not ONCE denied the allegations, only deflected the question, refused to answer the question, which indicates that it is most likely true. These type of anwers are given when the person does not want to speak a lie, but they also do not want to speak the truth.
Golightly is right. This is the proper forum for such speculation, pointing out discrepencies and the obvious. It is not a court of law here...but an exchange of ideas and opinions.
Since you want to bring up my defense of Elian, I will point out to you that during the Elian controversy, I was busy fighting off the rumours and the out and out lies made up about the case by the media, and those people who wanted Elian returned to Cuba. I am doing now the same thing that I was doing then, pointing out the lies and misinformation that people spread.
I didn't need to speculate on the Clintons, and the backroom deals, I had facts to back my statements, and I posted them as proof.
I have taken the time to read the newspaper articles linked on this thread, as well as many more, not one offers a shred of evidence that supports the "swingers" revelation, not a single one. No one has come forward and claimed that they have first person testimony.
There is one more difference that you failed to see.
When one speculated about the President of the US, one is speculating about a public figure. Tp speculate that Mr. van Dam may have been having sex with his daughter, and that being the cause of death (read it it's posted right on thi thread.), that's just nasty, and uncalled for, and I find that sort of behavior offensive.
"Liar is an ugly word, and not necessarily true in this instance..."
I use that word to describe people who misrepresent what I say, or simply attribute things to me that I never said.
Find any one of the instances where I have called someone a liar, and I specifically point out the nature of their lie.
"people who will win this debate will be the ones who speculated most correctly about what really happened"
Win? There is a little girl missing out there!! I don't give a damn about wining this debate!!
I do want facts sent out to the public, facts that may help find Danielle, and her abductor!
But since you brought up the subject: "As it happens, you and some others are speculating that there is nothing wrong with the parents' lifestyle and that it had nothing whatever to do with the child's disappearance. "The lead investigator in the caswe has released a statement in which he infoms us that the people who were present in the house Friday and Saturady night have been cleared of any suspicion.
you should really read the artcles posted, and ignore the rumours.
I don't know the discjockey from boo...and I have heard some whoppers from Dan Rather and friends. Last but not least, I don't know that I adhere to the concept that Law enforcement officers do not lie. They are human after all. Not only that, but the mere fact that he will not allow his name to be released is suspicious. Are these two (discjockey and "law enforcement officer) above reproach? These are accussations that border on slander, should our media people be allowed to spread these rumours out w/out accountability?
Funny, FITZ can find the fact that the van Dams have hired a PR frim suspicious, and he questions their reasons. But no one here questions a person who will sling accusations but demand to remain anonymous.
Oh, really? Documented facts? Or just what you heard from someone close to the case? It's been awhile, so my memory might be wrong, but I seem to recall that it was mostly the latter. (I am sure you will correct me if I'm wrong, but if you do, please post the source.) And you were right, I might add. But I don't recall seeing the documens posted.
As for calling someone a liar--the civil thing to do is give someone the benefit of the doubt--people can be mistaken about many things, and it might not be an intentional lie. There are far better ways of handling it than resorting to name-calling. Usually, name-calling is a sure-fire indicator that someone has run out of debating points, and that's their last ditch effort to win the debate.
And how very compassionate of you to notice that a little girl's life is at stake while people worry about winning a debate. Yet, I don't exactly see you throwing in your hat. Perhaps I'll doubt your sincerity less once you do.
Exactly what is written. Do you have a comprehension problem? Oh! I get it! You are upset because I will NOT participate in mudslinging!
You want to call the van Dams "perverts"? Go ahead, I call them immoral, or sinners. I attack the sin, not the sinner.
"That you think what this couple is doing is reprehensible, irresponsible, and likely contributory to the loss of their child?"
No, that's what YOU think. I have yet to see anything that will convince me that their lifestyle had anything to do with Danielle being missing.
As a matter of fact, according to the news article posted on this thread, the lead investigator in the case has cleared all the people present at the van Dams on Friday and Saturday nights from any wrongdoing related to the alleged abduction.
Now, you don't want to question the statements of a responsible news reporter and a law enforcement officer (one who actually gives his name out) do you?
So, when you said:
There is really nothing "perverted" about their sexual preferences.
We can all infer that you find nothing perverted about having group sex and/or sharing wives and husbands with others, that you think there is nothing perverted about that. That's your opinion, Luis, and it's shared by tortoise and EricOKC among others here, but please allow the rest of us our own opinions about that kind of "lifestyle." However, if it is your opinion, don't deny it later on. It might bring up the "L" word, with good basis.
There definately are persons who engage in acts as part of a lifestyle... However, I don't consider those who go to the bar weekly to be of the "Bar Lifestyle" so I certainly am not going to consider everyone who had sex outside their marriage to be part of the "swinging lifestyle".
You are making a big jump from the still unsubstantiated allegations that these two were swingers, to now are also part of the swinging lifestyle. I own a motorcycle, a Harley in fact, but I don't consider myself part of the Biker lifestyle... I have friends that are, but I am not.
If my memory serves the last studies they did on swinging by any reputable group found that in general swingers engaged in their activity on average of around once a month, and as such could not classify it as an obsession or compulsion. They also found that most of them were pretty ordinary in every other way.. Now with that being said there are the "lifestyle" folks who live it 24/7, just as with bikers etc. But as I have said, somehow we have gone from unsubstantiated allegations of swinging, to now being lifestyle swingers.... This may all be true, though as of now none has been proven (though I suspect they likely may have been swingers) and we still don't have a link as to how this contributed to their child's disappearance even if it is true.
As to children's adjustments regarding lifestyles in general, I have seen poorly adjusted children who come from stable homes as often or as not as homes where the parents engaged in some other "oustide the norm" activity... Nudists, Swinging, BDSM etc... I may not agree with the parent's picadillos, but I have been around and seen too much to jump on this bandwagon that because these parents had sexual secrets they must be bad parents... this is ludicrous.
Your definition of "lifestyle" and mine are a bit different. As I have stated before, in the studies I have read on this topic do not support your whole assumptions. An average of doing something once a month is hardly a lifestyle.
Children do not need to be told the details of anyone's sexual life, to see and experience the fruits of a chosen lifestyle. The child living in the crack house does not need to be told the details of drug use, to experience the results of that lifestyle.
Ok, now here is where you really lose me, yes living in a crack house definately has adverse affects on all living there, however, your attempt to draw a parrallel between growing up surrounded by people shooting up, and the fact your parents go out once a month, are completely different beasts. Even if the parents during that time do engage in sexual activities outside the norm, I fail to see how you draw a conclusion. It seems to me that you definately have a preconcieved notion of the typical swinger not based on research but on Pornography.
There are a variety of reasons why swinging parents attempt to hide this lifestyle from their children, they know it is extremely difficult to instill values of commitment, loyalty, faithfulness when they live the opposite.
Ok, now stop right here... this is where you REALLY are out of line. Commitment, loyalty and faithfulness cannot be instilled by persons who engage in sex acts outside of their primary relationship? Well if that is true at least 70% of the people walking the earth will never understand those concepts. Your assume first of all that the marriage involved vows regading sexual relatoins, which is not neccessarily the case. Number 2 you assume that simply by the fact the couple for whatever reason chooses to engage in sexual activities with others that they are not loyal or committed to each other... as though simply because they have had sex with others they will walk away from their spouse or family... This is a HUGE leap of logic. Divorce is no higher among swingers than the general population from what I have read, in fact I believe it is slightly lower.
It is fairly well known and established that children who are aware of multiple sexual partners with parents, often experience emotional problems, as well as feelings of betrayal and anger. Children do not like to be very different from their peers. If they wish their children to be involved in a religion, this lifestyle is in opposition to most religions.
Again we return to the question of a parent exposing a child to their sexual activities. Since we both agree they should not be exposed to the details, why do you then condemn those who deviate from the norm for exposing their children? IF they don't expost their children because it is ADULT in nature, you condemn them for hiding it.. no parent should be talking about the intimate details of their sex life with a young child, no matter how wild or prudish their sex life may be. I personally believe more kids have found out their parents were having sex with others through finding them cheating than finding them swinging... but I suppose that isn't important either.
There are a multitude of reasonings, but the bottom line is that swingers DO attempt to hide their lifestyle from their children. Monogamous couples do NOT attempt to hide their lifestyle from their children.
Again we return to the lifestyle question, I suggest honestly that your impression of the typical swinger is quite skewed. Just as the average homosexual is not down in soho with 25 partners or more a night, the typical swinger from what I know is not either. I fail to see how as I have said, a couple going out once a month is a lifestyle, or how the activities they engage in in those adult settings away from their kids somehow adversely affects their family lifestyle. Pick up some human sexuality studies, you might learn a thing or two.
I further stated that there are often events in a life that are not typical of the lifestyle, such as the urban professional spending a week in the Alaskan wilderness.
I suggest that you use the dictionary of your choice and look up the word, "lifestyle". You will probably disagree with the dictionary as well, but nevertheless, the English language is composed on standard definitions, and not opinions, or what we would like to see the word mean.
BTW, where did you come up with the "once a month" swing thing, as pertaining to the Van Dams?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.