If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Woody Allen responds   (nytimes.com) divider line 353
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

11159 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2014 at 12:02 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



353 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-09 02:29:39 AM  

DrBenway: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: DrBenway: This is all well and good anecdotally, both of you, but how about some specifics regarding this particular case? How did the process work (or not work) in him being able to adopt not once, but twice, with Soon Yi, given his supposed history and notoriety? Were there investigations or angry demonstrations? Was there expert testimony brought to bear? Were pay-offs made? Or was it all pretty straightforward and on the up-and-up? Because that, as much as anything, would speak significantly to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the charges brought against him as far as I'm concerned.


I was responding to your implication that he would not have been allowed to adopt if he were in fact a creepy evil child molester. The fact that he successfully adopted does not speak to his guilt/creepiness, for the reasons that I gave earlier.

If you believe there is nonetheless some *particular* fact about those adoption proceedings that somehow does speak to the legitimacy of the accusations, you're free to specify what it is. So far as I know, the adoption proceedings are wholly irrelevant to the truth of the abuse allegations.

No, what's irrelevant is a bunch of general "oh rich people can get away with anyway if they want to" conjecture which does not in any way speak to the specifics of this particular case. If you have some inside knowledge of strings being pulled to facilitate these adoptions, do share them. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. Or if I'm wrong that in a typical case, similar charges would not set off any alarms if even if they were thought to have substance, then please set me straight.



I've already set you straight.  You are trying this red herring of "if he were a creepy child molester that would keep him from adopting; therefore since he did adopt he must not be one."  What I have given you is an explanation of why your premise is ludicrous on its face, but your more fundamental problem is that you have not even begun to try to support it in any way.
 
2014-02-09 03:10:10 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: I've already set you straight.  You are trying this red herring of "if he were a creepy child molester that would keep him from adopting; therefore since he did adopt he must not be one."  What I have given you is an explanation of why your premise is ludicrous on its face, but your more fundamental problem is that you have not even ...


I have to admit.... you're pretty good at dismissing things that are inconvenient to your argument.
 
2014-02-09 09:05:36 AM  
www.911sharethetruth.com
 
Displayed 3 of 353 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report