Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl

Should the APA's CQR "Audited-Group-Think" Methods Be Subject to Public Review?

  • Yes, hold a full public inquiry as to why the APA discards facts in deference to group-ideology.

    Votes: 17 81.0%
  • Maybe, I'd have to study more on CQR vs data and facts to have a better opinion here.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No way. The public has no business in oversight over what the APA approves or disapproves of.

    Votes: 4 19.0%

  • Total voters
    21
Status
Not open for further replies.
You “just” did?

After learning about this no less than 3 years ago?

Again, by your own definition, you are a child abuser.
We'll see. Better late than never. That goes for the rest of you following my links. Do it. Turn in the perps of this child abuse. :popcorn:
Not to mention, you claim you notified authorities. No one really knows if you actually did or not.
 
Well I guess you'll just have to wait and see. Many more people can contact them too now that the info is so handy in my signature. Thanks for the inspiration Faun.
 
I don't promote murder. I promote justice served for the victims of homosexual perverts and those who sing their accolades...like you.

And would this 'justice' involve throwing people off of roof tops?
Nah. Just a bullet to the temple.
What would you do if you saw child abuse and the parents laughed in your face and taunted you that there was nothing you could do about it because even the authorities (in certain areas) have their back to continue?

What child abuse, SIl? Remmeber, loving parents raising a special needs child isn't child abuse. You're *imagining* its child abuse....and know you're full of it. Which is why you've never once called the police on these parents. This despite your own admission that you have a statutory responsibility to do so if that was actually child abuse.

You remain silent....because you know you're full of shit.

It's a moral question for all the readers here. We aren't talking about a race of people, we're talking about deviant sex behavioralists abusing a child. What would YOU do?

Your obsession with gay people and your ilk's demands for gays to be 'physically removed from society' or tossed from roof tops isn't a particularly difficult moral question.

You're rejected. The hate and madness that fuels the anti-gay sentiment in this thread is rejected. And its dying with you as the carriers such hatred age out of existence.
 
We'll leave it up to the DOJ to determine what child abuse is in this case. Buckle up buttercup.
 
We'll leave it up to the DOJ to determine what child abuse is in this case. Buckle up buttercup.

By your own admission, you have a statutory responsibility to report child abuse. You've known about this since 2011. You've never called the police. By your own standards, you are a child abuser.

That is...if you actually believe that's child abuse. You don't. Even you know you're hysteric pseudo-legal gibberish is meaningless. Which is why you never called the police.

As for your latest promises about future legal outcomes, I won't hold my breath. Every single prediction you've ever made about the law, without exception, has been wrong. Your record of prediction is one of perfect failure.

But this time your pseudo-legal ramblings are different? Um, no. Even you know you're full of shit.
 
Better late than never. Again, thanks Faun for the inspiration.

Sil, you've known about this since 2011. You did nothing. By your own standards, you're a child abuser.

But you expect us to take your counsel on child abuse?

No thank you.
 
You're right Skylar, I should've called the police. But because the state where the abuse is happening won't act to protect him, I called the US Dept of Justice instead. Know your chain of command I guess.

I think both of you should turn me in on a high-profile case of "failure to protect". How about it? :popcorn:
 
You're right Skylar, I should've called the police. But because the state where the abuse is happening won't act to protect him, I called the US Dept of Justice instead. Know your chain of command I guess.

I think both of you should turn me in on a high-profile case of "failure to protect". How about it? :popcorn:
Turn you in for what?
 
You're right Skylar, I should've called the police. But because the state where the abuse is happening won't act to protect him, I called the US Dept of Justice instead. Know your chain of command I guess.

So now you're giving me snivelling excuses why you didn't follow your own counsel for 6 years?

The reason you didn't call is simple: you know you're full of shit. You know that two loving parents caring for a special needs child isn't child abuse. And you're not willing to put yourself on the line for your own meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish that even you know is worthless.

I think both of you should turn me in on a high-profile case of "failure to protect". How about it? :popcorn:

Laughing....Sil, if even you are going to ignore you, why would we care what nonsense you tell yourself?
 
You're right Skylar, I should've called the police. But because the state where the abuse is happening won't act to protect him, I called the US Dept of Justice instead. Know your chain of command I guess.

I think both of you should turn me in on a high-profile case of "failure to protect". How about it? :popcorn:
Turn you in for what?

For not reporting non-existent child abuse.
 
You're right Skylar, I should've called the police. But because the state where the abuse is happening won't act to protect him, I called the US Dept of Justice instead. Know your chain of command I guess.

I think both of you should turn me in on a high-profile case of "failure to protect". How about it? :popcorn:
Turn you in for what?
:lmao:

Catch-22
 
You're right Skylar, I should've called the police. But because the state where the abuse is happening won't act to protect him, I called the US Dept of Justice instead. Know your chain of command I guess.

I think both of you should turn me in on a high-profile case of "failure to protect". How about it? :popcorn:
Turn you in for what?
:lmao:

Catch-22

The fundamental flaws of your confusion about the law protect you too, Sil.

As we can't turn you in for 'failure to protect' against non-existent child abuse. You've created a perfect circle of meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. And at its center.....your imagination.
 
We'll see if drugging a boy to amputate his genitals in adult sexual coercion is "my imagination" as child abuse. An investigation should bear that out, no? :popcorn:
 
You're right Skylar, I should've called the police. But because the state where the abuse is happening won't act to protect him, I called the US Dept of Justice instead. Know your chain of command I guess.

I think both of you should turn me in on a high-profile case of "failure to protect". How about it? :popcorn:
Turn you in for what?
:lmao:

Catch-22
What catch 22?

I would turn you in if I believed child abuse had occurred. I don’t. Neither do you or you would have contacted authorities years ago and not waited until shamed into it by Skylar.

This thread alone is 3 years old and you never contacted authorities until Skylar pointed out your lack of concern actually revealed your lack of conviction. And even now, you merely feign concern by claiming you’ve contacted authorities with zero evidence you actually did.
 
It's OK Faun...I've let the cat out of the bag a time or two myself and regretted it... :itsok:
 
It's OK Faun...I've let the cat out of the bag a time or two myself and regretted it... :itsok:
Cries a self-confessed child abuser.
Context please. Otherwise it looks like hyperbole.

The context is you knowing about this case for 3 years and doing nothing....despite your insistence that it was child abuse and your own admission that you had a statutory responsibility to report child abuse.

Demonstrating one of 2 things;

1) You're an admitted child abuser as you did nothing while a child was abused for 4 years.

2) You don't believe your own bullshit about this being 'child abuse', and did nothing because you knew your pseudo-legal gibberish was essentially meaningless noise.

Either option doesn't give me any reason to listen to you now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top