KONY 2012

[Azrael]

Well, maybe now there will be naked masturbating vandal meme instead of Kony meme, eh?

There sorta is one now.

[Veblenia]

Well, maybe now there will be naked masturbating vandal meme instead of Kony meme, eh?

As a Jezebel staffer put it, "Wasn't the entire Kony 2012 campaign essentially this white guy masturbating in public?"

[Knask]

Let me reenact it for you then. My summary of your position is in bold, the summary of what most other posters have said in italics.

You: Invisible children lies and keeps 9 out of every 5 million 5 out of the 9 million they've raised!!
Not you: Do you have a source for that?
You: It's in the video.
Not you: The video just offers an assertion, and does not provide any sources. In fact, here's links supporting the contrary argument. Can you point out where the lie is?
You: What lie?

It's interesting you get the mistake in there perfectly fine, but you don't get what is important in there right. I said what do you want exposed and now you're changing my words to say "What lie?" Your source says nothing about their money accounting...

...except the part you overlooked, where it did.

I quoted the relevant part, but you seem to have overlooked that as well.

More lies from Human Rights Watch:

Did I say anything about rape not happening? No, in fact I addressed issues such as that. I said you can't blame Joseph Kony for the acts of the soldiers,

...which is a ridiculous position to hold, considering that Kony is the undisputed leader of the LRA and has been since it was created (as well as a self-declared spokesperson of God and a spirit medium).

He's the leader of the group, and thus responsible for the actions of his soldiers acting on his orders.

he did not give the orders to rape children or girls or anyone.

[Citation needed]
I've already presented you with evidence to the contrary, which you seem to have overlooked, and all you have thus far is unfounded assertions and discredited statements (Kony has no credibility).

Did I say that in the article provided by you that the mutilations and other crimes are non-existant? No, I didn't, I said you can't blame Kony for it, it is the soldiers fault and if the field commanders ordered it, it would be the commanders's fault, not Kony's.

And if you read my post correctly, I said Kony does have children in his army and I said it illegal under international law, didn't I? I said he didn't order for the crimes he is accused of.

You're being silly. You agree that Kony uses child soldiers, but maintain that he didn't order children to be forced into his army?

[Venolia]

It's interesting you get the mistake in there perfectly fine, but you don't get what is important in there right. I said what do you want exposed and now you're changing my words to say "What lie?" Your source says nothing about their money accounting...

...except the part you overlooked, where it did.

I quoted the relevant part, but you seem to have overlooked that as well.

Did I say anything about rape not happening? No, in fact I addressed issues such as that. I said you can't blame Joseph Kony for the acts of the soldiers,

...which is a ridiculous position to hold, considering that Kony is the undisputed leader of the LRA and has been since it was created (as well as a self-declared spokesperson of God and a spirit medium).

He's the leader of the group, and thus responsible for the actions of his soldiers acting on his orders.

he did not give the orders to rape children or girls or anyone.

[Citation needed]
I've already presented you with evidence to the contrary, which you seem to have overlooked, and all you have thus far is unfounded assertions and discredited statements (Kony has no credibility).

Did I say that in the article provided by you that the mutilations and other crimes are non-existant? No, I didn't, I said you can't blame Kony for it, it is the soldiers fault and if the field commanders ordered it, it would be the commanders's fault, not Kony's.

And if you read my post correctly, I said Kony does have children in his army and I said it illegal under international law, didn't I? I said he didn't order for the crimes he is accused of.

You're being silly. You agree that Kony uses child soldiers, but maintain that he didn't order children to be forced into his army?

I'll make this simple for a simple person. When someone does something wrong, you do not blame their boss if their boss didn't tell them to do it. You blame the person who did it. When too many people have done it you blame the commander, not Kony. Kony has nothing to gain from telling his military to rape people, there is an interview with Kony where he says so. About you saying Kony has no credibility, to me, he has more credibility than you. Why? Because you actually believe KONY 2012 is good. Why not just give money to Red Cross or Amnesty International. The last part you quoted is partially my fault, I should have made a simple and clear as possible for someone like you, I'm sorry about that. He DID use children in his army, which is ILLEGAL. He did not order for the raping or mutilation of anyone, it DID happen but it would be the soldiers' or field commanders' fault NOT Kony's. I have evidence as there is a interview where he says he didn't it, which seems to be more than what you can provide, I am not saying that the rapes didn't happen and I'm not saying the mutilations didn't happen. I'm saying it is not Kony's fault if he didn't order for it to happen. If he did than it is his fault, but he didn't. You can't shift blame on to someone who you disagree with when they have not done what you accused them of (id est you can't blame Kony because you disagree with his methods when he didn't order for the rapings or mutilations, you can blame him for forcing children to work in his army, if he did order the mutilations and rapings (whihc I highly doubt he did) then you may hold him responsible). You can't hold him responsible for his soldiers' or field commanders' actions because he isn't in the field. If he gives orders to his field commanders to have the children mutilated than yes you may. I cannot simplify this for you any further, if the person didn't do it, don't blame them for it.

It has come down to this: Did Kony order for the mutilations and rapings of many people? According to his interview, no. According to you, he should be held responsible, even if he didn't order for it or even if he isn't there to supervise it. Is what I said you believe right or wrong?

[Satire and Mocking]

RON PAUL will beat EVERYONE in 2012, even KONY

[Knask]

...except the part you overlooked, where it did.

I quoted the relevant part, but you seem to have overlooked that as well.



...which is a ridiculous position to hold, considering that Kony is the undisputed leader of the LRA and has been since it was created (as well as a self-declared spokesperson of God and a spirit medium).

He's the leader of the group, and thus responsible for the actions of his soldiers acting on his orders.


[Citation needed]
I've already presented you with evidence to the contrary, which you seem to have overlooked, and all you have thus far is unfounded assertions and discredited statements (Kony has no credibility).


You're being silly. You agree that Kony uses child soldiers, but maintain that he didn't order children to be forced into his army?

I'll make this simple for a simple person. When someone does something wrong, you do not blame their boss if their boss didn't tell them to do it. You blame the person who did it. When too many people have done it you blame the commander, not Kony.

Kony is the commander. He is the one giving the orders, from the top. He has given the orders, and I've linked you to different organizations verifying that:

Kony, armed with prophecies that he said he received from spirits who came to him in dreams, ordered the LRA to attack villages, murdering, raping, and mutilating in a campaign of intimidation that displaced some two million people. Children were abducted and brainwashed into becoming soldiers and slaves. Kony convinced them that holy water made them bulletproof. Children who resisted or tried to escape were beaten to death by their peers. Kony was reported to have taken as many as 50 of his female captives as “wives.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1017670/Joseph-Kony

After this defeat, Mr Kony founded his own rebel group which over the next 19 years went on to abduct thousands of children to become fighters or sex slaves.

Mr Kony himself is thought to have at least 60 wives, as he and his senior commanders take the pick of the girls they capture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4320858.stm

Kony has nothing to gain from telling his military to rape people, there is an interview with Kony where he says so.

Of course he had something to gain. Sexual release for himself and his men, and striking terror into the civilian population, among other things.

As for the interview... That would be the interview where he claims to have no child soldiers in his army?

About you saying Kony has no credibility, to me, he has more credibility than you.

Despite the fact that he lied about using child soldiers, you still find him credible? And nevermind about me, I'm a faceless voice on the internet. The question would be, why are UNICEF, HRW, UNHCR etc. not credible sources to you?

Why? Because you actually believe KONY 2012 is good.

Please point out where I've said anything of the sort.

Why not just give money to Red Cross or Amnesty International. The last part you quoted is partially my fault, I should have made a simple and clear as possible for someone like you, I'm sorry about that. He DID use children in his army, which is ILLEGAL. He did not order for the raping or mutilation of anyone,

[Citation still needed]

it DID happen but it would be the soldiers' or field commanders' fault NOT Kony's. I have evidence as there is a interview where he says he didn't it, which seems to be more than what you can provide,

...

This is an honest question, because I'm getting to be a bit concerned.

Have you... have you even read my posts? You know, the posts with multiple sources and references?

you can blame him for forcing children to work in his army

Why the double standard? I mean, he said he didn't force them (despite the fact that it's clear that he did), so why isn't that good enough for you now, all of a sudden?

if he did order the mutilations and rapings (whihc I highly doubt he did)

Because of his own statement, and disregarding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

It has come down to this: Did Kony order for the mutilations and rapings of many people? According to his interview, no. According to you, he should be held responsible, even if he didn't order for it or even if he isn't there to supervise it. Is what I said you believe right or wrong?

Wrong.

If, despite all of the available evidence, and against all likelihood he didn't order these things, nor condoned the acts or knew about them but did nothing to stop the soldiers under his command, he shouldn't be punished for them. I'm just amazed that you base your judgement on one interview with the guy and disregard everything else.

It seems like you refuse to believe sources (some from 2005-2006, I might add) because that would support parts of the Kony 2012 video, and you're so strongly opposed to the video that you cannot deal with that. You should try looking beyond the viral videos. Instead, read The Night Wanderers by Wojciech Jagielski, or The Wizard of the Nile: The Hunt for Africa's Most Wanted by Matthew Green if you can't be bothered to read official NGO reports.

[Smudgedonia]

Have the jokes been posted yet? Surely I'm not too late!

[Knask]

Catherine had been held captive for 13 years by the Lord’s Resistance Army, LRA, whose leader Joseph Kony had taken her as one of his many wives, she told IWPR. On the night of October 9, 1996, Catherine was among 139 girls kidnapped by the LRA in a raid on St Mary’s College, a girl’s school in the town of Aboke about 30 kilometres from Lira. A fearless nun named Sister Rachele went after the girls, and secured the release of 109 after negotiating with the LRA unit commander. The 30 she was unable to get back became known as the Aboke girls.

Of the 30, two died in captivity and 28 managed to escape. Catherine was the last to do so.

http://www.afrika.no/Detailed/18136.html

Why try to kidnap 139 girls? If it wasn't on Kony's orders, why weren't the remaining 30 immediately released?

“I was going to school when the rebels abducted eight of us in 1991.

“I was given to one of the commanders called Abucingu. He took us to Southern Sudan, where we found many rebels in Nisitu, one of their main camps. Kony then took me and two other girls. He said we would work in his home helping his other wives.

“Later in 1996 Kony told me I was his wife. I feared he would kill me if I refused. I was not ready to be a wife at that young age and it was difficult and painful. I cried but there was no way out.

“I had my first child in January 1997 and he named the baby George Bush. In 1999 I had another baby with him.

http://www.irinnews.org/Report/84837/UGANDA-Lilly-Atong-I-was-Joseph-Kony-s-wife
Is it not rape if you take them as wives first? (against their wills?)

Eveline was abducted at age 12. "Soon after, the commanders started to fight about who could have me as a wife," she recalls. "At one point they even threatened to kill me, because they said I was bringing division. Then Joseph intervened and saved my life. He decided to take me as his wife." In Kony's Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) it was standard practice to abduct children: the boys became soldiers and the girls became wives. Kony had 30 wives, says Eveline.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201203151069.html
Kony's intervention is to keep her for himself. No indication that abducting 12-year-olds and taking them as wives is frowned upon in his army. Rather, it was "standard practice". That speaks to the leader giving orders.

Polline was a 14-year-old schoolgirl who dreamed of becoming a reporter when two young men approached her in her village one Friday morning as she hung out her washing in 2002. Her mother was not at home when they questioned her about being married, but her instincts told her to lie so she told them her husband was at the market. She looked young, they didn’t buy her story, and instead brought out the guns concealed under their shirts, beat her, then marched her into the bush to join a large group of rebels and other abducted children.

“Most girls are given to men to serve as housewives, cooking and cleaning, and most are not allowed to fight. Their work is to carry heavy luggage” says Polline.

Polline was a hard worker, focused and clever. These qualities brought her to the attention of Joseph Kony and his commanders and would later save her life, but not before surviving seven long years of war. “The worst part was when were in Soroti (north-eastern Uganda) and many people were killed. My best friend was shot in front of me and it was so painful. The hardest thing was seeing innocent people killed for no reason. If you fail to walk long distances you are killed for no reason.”

For four years her life was a series of long treks through the bush, fighting government forces, enduring attacks, abducting more children and being subjected to sexual violence on a daily basis. “We were always moving, from six in the morning to six at night, mothers with children on their backs, carrying heavy luggage, just like the slave trade.”

Then in 2006, when Joseph Kony and the LRA leaders were forced back into the Democratic Republic of Congo, Polline was with them. “I knew Joseph Kony. We were together, we moved together, did everything together. He was the type of person to give orders. He didn’t do things himself. He could send soldiers out and tell them “when you see people, just kill them.’”

http://mommymatters.co.za/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=218:i-survived-being-joseph-konys-wife&Itemid=159
Yeah...

But since Kony in an interview said he did no wrong, he cannot possibly have done anything wrong, eh?

[Smudgedonia]

Looks like I'm in time.


Kony, putting the infant in infantry.


Haw haw haw! What a devilish...devil? I am

[Knask]

Looks like I'm in time.


Kony, putting the infant in infantry.


Haw haw haw! What a devilish...devil? I am

You're too late

[Venolia]

I'll make this simple for a simple person. When someone does something wrong, you do not blame their boss if their boss didn't tell them to do it. You blame the person who did it. When too many people have done it you blame the commander, not Kony.

Kony is the commander. He is the one giving the orders, from the top. He has given the orders, and I've linked you to different organizations verifying that:

Kony, armed with prophecies that he said he received from spirits who came to him in dreams, ordered the LRA to attack villages, murdering, raping, and mutilating in a campaign of intimidation that displaced some two million people. Children were abducted and brainwashed into becoming soldiers and slaves. Kony convinced them that holy water made them bulletproof. Children who resisted or tried to escape were beaten to death by their peers. Kony was reported to have taken as many as 50 of his female captives as “wives.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1017670/Joseph-Kony

After this defeat, Mr Kony founded his own rebel group which over the next 19 years went on to abduct thousands of children to become fighters or sex slaves.

Mr Kony himself is thought to have at least 60 wives, as he and his senior commanders take the pick of the girls they capture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4320858.stm

Kony has nothing to gain from telling his military to rape people, there is an interview with Kony where he says so.

Of course he had something to gain. Sexual release for himself and his men, and striking terror into the civilian population, among other things.

As for the interview... That would be the interview where he claims to have no child soldiers in his army?

About you saying Kony has no credibility, to me, he has more credibility than you.

Despite the fact that he lied about using child soldiers, you still find him credible? And nevermind about me, I'm a faceless voice on the internet. The question would be, why are UNICEF, HRW, UNHCR etc. not credible sources to you?

Why? Because you actually believe KONY 2012 is good.

Please point out where I've said anything of the sort.

Why not just give money to Red Cross or Amnesty International. The last part you quoted is partially my fault, I should have made a simple and clear as possible for someone like you, I'm sorry about that. He DID use children in his army, which is ILLEGAL. He did not order for the raping or mutilation of anyone,

[Citation still needed]

it DID happen but it would be the soldiers' or field commanders' fault NOT Kony's. I have evidence as there is a interview where he says he didn't it, which seems to be more than what you can provide,

...

This is an honest question, because I'm getting to be a bit concerned.

Have you... have you even read my posts? You know, the posts with multiple sources and references?

you can blame him for forcing children to work in his army

Why the double standard? I mean, he said he didn't force them (despite the fact that it's clear that he did), so why isn't that good enough for you now, all of a sudden?

if he did order the mutilations and rapings (whihc I highly doubt he did)

Because of his own statement, and disregarding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

It has come down to this: Did Kony order for the mutilations and rapings of many people? According to his interview, no. According to you, he should be held responsible, even if he didn't order for it or even if he isn't there to supervise it. Is what I said you believe right or wrong?

Wrong.

If, despite all of the available evidence, and against all likelihood he didn't order these things, nor condoned the acts or knew about them but did nothing to stop the soldiers under his command, he shouldn't be punished for them. I'm just amazed that you base your judgement on one interview with the guy and disregard everything else.

It seems like you refuse to believe sources (some from 2005-2006, I might add) because that would support parts of the Kony 2012 video, and you're so strongly opposed to the video that you cannot deal with that. You should try looking beyond the viral videos. Instead, read The Night Wanderers by Wojciech Jagielski, or The Wizard of the Nile: The Hunt for Africa's Most Wanted by Matthew Green if you can't be bothered to read official NGO reports.

You are absolutely, positively, affirmitively, in-no-way-worng, 100 %, correct.

[Luna Amore]

Watching this video for the first time. Living in Rwanda, I've only had access to summaries. Just got the video loaded.

But seriously, this video is an overly emotionalized circle-jerk.

I don't need interviews with your toddler son; just give me the facts.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Watching this video for the first time. Living in Rwanda, I've only had access to summaries. Just got the video loaded.

But seriously, this video is an overly emotionalized circle-jerk.

I don't need interviews with your toddler son; just give me the facts.

Its utter tosh with the IC group having links to rather unsavoury anti 'lets all be human and get along' groups in the US....

https://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2012 ... u-to-know/ <- normally I don't post blogs for serious subjects but there are just far too many links so its easier to post this.

[Grave_n_idle]

...which is not the same as saying he can't be trusted to look after one child.

If Ted Haggard is a fit father to five despite sucking meth off the cock of a male escort, then someone getting pulled-in under the influence might not completely invalidate their parental qualification.

As I said before though, I hate to rush to judgement so early - I'd like more information. Not least - whether he jumped or was pushed.

It is not the same as saying, but it is appercieved by many of disqualifying someone of being a parent.

Is it?

Can you cite something? Either a realistically representative poll, or some kind of legal source that explains where guardianship would be revoked in the case of accusations of public partial nudity and being under the influence?

To be honest, as high as the DUI incidence is in the US, it seems like that being caught drunk/drugged in public is VERY unlikely to be grounds for immediate revocation of parental rights.

[Grave_n_idle]

This guy is just as nuts as Kony, and both of them are Christians.

Really, really no.

Not to mention the fact that Kony left Uganda several years ago and doesn't operate there anymore, yet Invisible Children still peddles misinformation about Kony operating there

Not true - as already addressed and sourced within this thread.

...in order to get people to prop up anti-gay lawmakers in the Ugandan government. And Uganda's leader got into power through child soldiers and the Ugandan government has committed just as many atrocities as Kony's group, but Invisible Children acts as if the Ugandan government is good and Kony is bad...

They certainly act like Kony is 'bad'. They don't claim that the Ugandan government is 'good', though.

[Grave_n_idle]

By 'this foolishness', I assume you're talking about the "Kony 2012" project?

Yes...

'Yes' was all I needed. Obviously, your opinion about the "Kony 2012" film is your own opinion. You might not like it, but that doesn't make it foolish.

[Grave_n_idle]

"Well, at least I'm not as bad a father as this bloke" isn't a convincing argument

Nor is it an argument that he has made.

when you're presenting yourself as the paragon of human virtue;

Another argument he hasn't made.

especially related to saving children. It tends to impact your credibility when you can barely look after your own child.

Looks like three strikes from three swings. I've seen no implication yet that he 'can barely look after' his own child.

[Venolia]

It is not the same as saying, but it is appercieved by many of disqualifying someone of being a parent.

Is it?

Can you cite something? Either a realistically representative poll, or some kind of legal source that explains where guardianship would be revoked in the case of accusations of public partial nudity and being under the influence?

To be honest, as high as the DUI incidence is in the US, it seems like that being caught drunk/drugged in public is VERY unlikely to be grounds for immediate revocation of parental rights.

Yes it is. Maybe that is why you are defending him or maybe just because you like who he works for. You, in this case, are the minorty of the opinion. You know, just as well as I do, that most people wouldn't think of a drunk criminal as being a good parent. And I don't want to hear all you thoughts like "Do you have poll?" because people don't need to know that drunks do not constitute good parents. But I shouldn't expect that from you. So here. Here is a link, it isn't a poll per se, but more like an opinionaire from people who have to put up with drunk parents, the children of drunk parents.

EDIT: I forgot to include the link. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090525191333AATRtIy

This won't need a source or citation. Why? Because it came from the people. I'll pull out some important statistics from it and you can verify it all you want.

Question: Teens, do you hate when your parents get drunk?

Answers: 15
Yes: 11
No: 4

Out of the fifteen answers that gave a response as in "Yes, I hate it" or "No, I don't hate it" or something similiar, only four said they liked it when their parents were drunk. The other eleven hated it. And you'll probably say "That's only when they're drunk." or "This poll does not answer the question of whether or not people think drunks constitute good parents." I'm not going to answer those, because if you can't make the connections than your not worth my time.

I still have another site you can go to. Some info before I give you the link: There is a show called What Would You Do? They fabricate issues such as teenagers bullying an elderly person or a parent favoring one of her child more than her other children out in public and see how people would respond to it. They set-up a situation where there would be a drunken parent, who is drinking way too much, with a kid in a restruant. Now, this is not a usual poll, this would be more of a poll where you are put into the situation and they would see how you respond, not hear what you say you would do. The link is below. To see the show however, you'll need to find it yourself.

http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/drinking-parenting/story?id=12051396

In the show, not the website (the website is just proof that the show exists), people's reactions are represented by what they do. So, if people go against the drunken parent, that would probably mean that they think drunk parents are not good parents, otherwise why would thye intervene?

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not sure sure if you grew up with some drunk as a father,

No, quite the oppoosite actually, he was basically teetotal, one of the characteristics I've largely followed.

Not sure quite why you brought it up, though? Flambait? Trolling? Really really lame attempt at ad hominem fallacy?

I can't see how it would affect what we were talking about, so I have to assume it was some kind of fallacy or dig.

...but yes it is. Maybe that is why you are defending him or maybe just because you like who he works for.

No, saying that he's not necessarily incapable of raising his kids because he may have got fucked-up one time is not even defending him. It's just saying that your immediate assertion that he MUST be a bad father is possibly baseless.

And I don't want to hear all you thoughts like "Do you have poll?"

Then a debate forum might not be the place for you, because - if you're not willing to support your claims with evidence, you're really not going to be ready.

...because people don't need to know that drunks do not constitute good parents.

Actually, perhaps they do 'need to know' - since that is very closely related to the discussion at hand, and people are making claims based on the assumption.

But I shouldn't expect that from you. So here. Here is a link, it isn't a poll per se, but more like an opinionaire from people who have to put up with drunk parents, the children of drunk parents.

EDIT: I forgot to include the link. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090525191333AATRtIy

This won't need a source or citation. Why? Because it came from the people. I'll pull out some important statistics from it and you can verify it all you want.

Question: Teens, do you hate when your parents get drunk?

Answers: 15
Yes: 11
No: 4

Out of the fifteen answers that gave a response as in "Yes, I hate it" or "No, I don't hate it" or something similiar, only four said they liked it when their parents were drunk. The other eleven hated it. And you'll probably say "That's only when they're drunk." or "This poll does not answer the question of whether or not people think drunks constitute good parents." I'm not going to answer those, because if you can't make the connections than your not worth my time.

You're not going to present a source that actually answers what you were asked, instead you're going to past some limited data points that might be tangentially connected if they were well-sourced and adequately representative... and if your 'data' isn't accepted as gospel, that's someone else's fault?

Yes. Perhaps you're really not ready for a debate forum.

I still have another site you can go to. Some info before I give you the link: There is a show called What Would You Do? They fabricate issues such as teenagers bullying an elderly person or a parent favoring one of her child more than her other children out in public and see how people would respond to it. They set-up a situation where there would be a drunken parent, who is drinking way too much, with a kid in a restruant. Now, this is not a usual poll, this would be more of a poll where you are put into the situation and they would see how you respond, not hear what you say you would do. The link is below. To see the show however, you'll need to find it yourself.

http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/drinking-parenting/story?id=12051396

In the show, not the website (the website is just proof that the show exists), people's reactions are represented by what they do. So, if people go against the drunken parent, that would probably mean that they think drunk parents are not good parents, otherwise why would thye intervene?

So... another complete failure to support your claim that one instance (as to yet, still largely speculative - we've very little information to go on) completely invalidates one's ability as a parent, or - apparently - one's fitness to do charity work.

So, baseless claims that just so happen to match the partisan agenda you set out with from the beginning. Yes, I'm sure your assessment is just ever so objective.

[Venolia]

I'm not sure sure if you grew up with some drunk as a father,

No, quite the oppoosite actually, he was basically teetotal, one of the characteristics I've largely followed.

Not sure quite why you brought it up, though? Flambait? Trolling? Really really lame attempt at ad hominem fallacy?

I can't see how it would affect what we were talking about, so I have to assume it was some kind of fallacy or dig.

...but yes it is. Maybe that is why you are defending him or maybe just because you like who he works for.

No, saying that he's not necessarily incapable of raising his kids because he may have got fucked-up one time is not even defending him. It's just saying that your immediate assertion that he MUST be a bad father is possibly baseless.

And I don't want to hear all you thoughts like "Do you have poll?"

Then a debate forum might not be the place for you, because - if you're not willing to support your claims with evidence, you're really not going to be ready.

...because people don't need to know that drunks do not constitute good parents.

Actually, perhaps they do 'need to know' - since that is very closely related to the discussion at hand, and people are making claims based on the assumption.

But I shouldn't expect that from you. So here. Here is a link, it isn't a poll per se, but more like an opinionaire from people who have to put up with drunk parents, the children of drunk parents.

EDIT: I forgot to include the link. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090525191333AATRtIy

This won't need a source or citation. Why? Because it came from the people. I'll pull out some important statistics from it and you can verify it all you want.

Question: Teens, do you hate when your parents get drunk?

Answers: 15
Yes: 11
No: 4

Out of the fifteen answers that gave a response as in "Yes, I hate it" or "No, I don't hate it" or something similiar, only four said they liked it when their parents were drunk. The other eleven hated it. And you'll probably say "That's only when they're drunk." or "This poll does not answer the question of whether or not people think drunks constitute good parents." I'm not going to answer those, because if you can't make the connections than your not worth my time.

You're not going to present a source that actually answers what you were asked, instead you're going to past some limited data points that might be tangentially connected if they were well-sourced and adequately representative... and if your 'data' isn't accepted as gospel, that's someone else's fault?

Yes. Perhaps you're really not ready for a debate forum.

I still have another site you can go to. Some info before I give you the link: There is a show called What Would You Do? They fabricate issues such as teenagers bullying an elderly person or a parent favoring one of her child more than her other children out in public and see how people would respond to it. They set-up a situation where there would be a drunken parent, who is drinking way too much, with a kid in a restruant. Now, this is not a usual poll, this would be more of a poll where you are put into the situation and they would see how you respond, not hear what you say you would do. The link is below. To see the show however, you'll need to find it yourself.

http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/drinking-parenting/story?id=12051396

In the show, not the website (the website is just proof that the show exists), people's reactions are represented by what they do. So, if people go against the drunken parent, that would probably mean that they think drunk parents are not good parents, otherwise why would thye intervene?

So... another complete failure to support your claim that one instance (as to yet, still largely speculative - we've very little information to go on) completely invalidates one's ability as a parent, or - apparently - one's fitness to do charity work.

So, baseless claims that just so happen to match the partisan agenda you set out with from the beginning. Yes, I'm sure your assessment is just ever so objective.

Yeah.. welll, I gave you two valid sources, as you have asked for sources. You can say whatever you want to try to defend yourself or him, but I'm still right, most people do not think drunk people constitute good parents. As I said earlier: "... because if you can't make the connections than your not worth my time." Point A would be drunk parents, Point B would be not good parents. You do not seem able to connect the two, so you are not worth my time arguing with. I'm going to lay this out there for you one last time though:

I said that most people do not believe drunk people to be good parents.
You asked if I had any polls or evidence.
I gave you two valid links, one of which I even counted the results for you.
It said four out of fifteen people thought drunks were good parents (Right now I just connected Point A and B, if you were wondering how I got that conclusion).
11/15 = majority.
So, the majority of people do not think drunks constitute good parents.
I am done debating with you. It's been a pleasure.



P.S.

About the part where I said something about a you and a drunk father. That was inappropriate of me and I am sorry I have said that.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yeah.. welll, I gave you two valid sources, as you have asked for sources.

I asked for sources. You did not provide anything worthwhile.

I am done debating with you. It's been a pleasure.

As I said to my 2 year old when she brought her toy vacuum cleaner through, and proceeded to make buzzing noises as she mimicked me:

"Ah, it so cute. You think you're doing what I'm doing!"

[Costa Fiero]

Not true - as already addressed and sourced within this thread.

Cite sources please because some of the most recent violence has occured in the Congo as well as South Sudan as well as the Garamba Offensive also taking place in the DRC. So unless you can provide the evidence that proves me wrong other than the video (which is dubious) or someone's over inflated opinion, then it remains that Kony is not in fact in Uganda.

[Grave_n_idle]

Not true - as already addressed and sourced within this thread.

Cite sources please because some of the most recent violence has occured in the Congo as well as South Sudan as well as the Garamba Offensive also taking place in the DRC. So unless you can provide the evidence that proves me wrong other than the video (which is dubious) or someone's over inflated opinion, then it remains that Kony is not in fact in Uganda.

I think you've missed the point.

Cool your jets and go back and make sure the point you're objecting to says what you think it says.

[Costa Fiero]

I think you've missed the point.

Cool your jets and go back and make sure the point you're objecting to says what you think it says.

I don't know what you're getting at by essentially saying Kony is still in Uganda when in fact there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. My point still stands because Kony is not in Uganda and hasn't been for the past few years.

[Romatticus]

Joseph Kony is the lunatic/mass murdering scum bag who runs the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.

Sounds pretty normal for Africa actaully. Why are people acting like this is something new?