Was 2020 election stolen or not?

[LV426]

That is what the court said, but it did not say it was "harmful."

Then what does it have to do with the child's best interests?

The kid hits, swears, and spits and has behavior problems so they obviously need to do anything to reduce conflict between parents.

So you're saying they ordered her to remove the flag because...it was creating conflict between the parents?

What conflict was it creating?

She has two other kids so the flag must not be harmful to them.

But it is harmful to one of her kids. Why that kid?

There are no flags to wave around. It is painted on a small rock by her driveway, something kids are unlikely to spend much time looking at.

But they'll still look at it, though. Its presence is still there, and you said that its presence wasn't in the best interest of the child. How?

 

[LV426]

Those are the words of the NY court. The family court and child guardian had no issue with the rock (with the flag). It only only brought up in the husband's appeal.

So, remember yesterday when we talked about your responsibility to the truth and how you have a bad habit of repeating untruths or half-truths that you think don't need to be qualified by anything?

That's what you're doing here.

And regardless of what came before, the issue NOW is that symbol causes harm to the child, which is why it was ordered to be removed.

So you've been arguing both that symbols do cause harm, and don't cause harm, and you've argued both depending on how your argument is faring at any given time.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Big shocker that she's your ex.

You were the problem, obviously.

Your choice.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Federal courts do not follow precedent from state courts. The precedent regarding displaying the flag is that is her constitutional right and that precedent is not going to be overturned.

That is what the court said, but it did not say it was "harmful." The kid hits, swears, and spits and has behavior problems so they obviously need to do anything to reduce conflict between parents.

She has two other kids so the flag must not be harmful to them.

There are no flags to wave around. It is painted on a small rock by her driveway, something kids are unlikely to spend much time looking at.

The law, and usually logic, always trumps passionate beliefs. Not everyone seems to understand this point, but I readily agree that is both the way it is and also that there is established procedure to change it. Passionate beliefs aren't one of those procedures.

 

[Flash]

EXCEPT for when it causes harm or affects the welfare of her child.

You are constantly leaving that part out.

Because that is not correct. It is only an issue in declaring her home the child's primary residence. If she did not want her home to be the primary residence the court would not even be hearing the case. So, the rock would not be a problem if the two parents retained joint custody.

So you're saying that symbols can cause harm, but only to kids?

The court never said the rock could cause harm. It said it was not in the best interest of the child.

The court never said the woman would lose custody if she did not remove the rock. It said it was a change in the home conditions and it would be one factor in considering the child's best interests.

The rock was more of an issue causing conflict between the parents than hurting the girl.

Further,and viewed pragmatically, the presence of the confederate flag is a symbol inflaming the already strained relationship between the parties. As such, while recognizing that the First Amendment protects the mother's right to display the flag (see generally People v Hollman, 68 NY2d 202, 205 [1986]), if it is not removed by June 1, 2021, its continued presence shall constitute a change in circumstances and Family Court shall factor this into any future best interests analysis."

The court does not require the woman to remove the rock to retain custody, only that it is one factor to be considered.

So your 1A rights are not absolute when it comes to flags, and are superseded by the welfare of children.

Is that going to be your final position, or are you going to keep revising it?

I never said that and it is not superseded by the welfare of children. If a family has ten children and a yard full of Confederate and Nazi flags they have the same constitutional right as all other U. S. residents. In this particular case the delicate issue of child custody looks at the rock as one factor in promoting harmony between parents and determining the best interests the child. The court is not determining if the rock is harmful to the child as the main issue.

A court ruled that flag harms a child, and if it can harm a child, it can harm an adult.

A court never ruled that flag harms a child and if the rock is not removed she could still have her home as the primary residence (for purposes of school attendance). If she is willing to retain joint custody there is no issue with the rock.

The federal courts have already ruled regarding adults. 1st amendment free speech outweighs any claim you have that your feelings are hurt.

So like I said, expect to see a lot of lawsuits in the next few years of courts ruling that Confederate flags must be removed for the sake of children's welfare.

I'm sure this prediction will be as accurate as your predictions about Trump canceling or delaying the election. Those lawsuits could only occur in NY since that is the only place precedent is established.

Do you think NY has many adults who have parents who are fighting over their custody that have Confederate flags in their yard?

 

[Flash]

Then what does it have to do with the child's best interests?

In determining child custody the court looks at the totality of the child's circumstances including living conditions and many different factors. In that particular case the court also discussed the stability of the home since both parents had moved several times, school attendance.....

"Factors to consider when conducting the best interests analysis include "the past performance and relative fitness of the parents, their willingness to foster a positive relationship between the [child] and the other parent, their fidelity to prior court orders and their ability to both provide a stable home environment and further the [child]'s overall well-being" [from the court decision]

So you're saying they ordered her to remove the flag because...it was creating conflict between the parents?

What conflict was it creating?

Probably not creating conflict but contributing to existing conflict. I don't know but my guess is that since mother and father are different races the father probably objects to the rock. Being included in the lawsuit illustrates conflict.

But they'll still look at it, though. Its presence is still there, and you said that its presence wasn't in the best interest of the child. How?

No, I didn't say that. I said the court said it was one factor they would consider in determining the best interest of the child.

As the court wrote:

Given that the child is of mixed race, it would seem apparent that the presence of the flag is not in the child's best interests,as the mother must encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed race identity, rather than thrust her into a world that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance. Further,and viewed pragmatically, the presence of the confederate flag is a symbol inflaming the already strained relationship between the parties.

 

[Flash]

So, remember yesterday when we talked about your responsibility to the truth and how you have a bad habit of repeating untruths or half-truths that you think don't need to be qualified by anything?

That's what you're doing here.

And regardless of what came before, the issue NOW is that symbol causes harm to the child, which is why it was ordered to be removed.

So you've been arguing both that symbols do cause harm, and don't cause harm, and you've argued both depending on how your argument is faring at any given time.

That is because you don't read carefully and have little understanding of constitutional law. You argue your opinions and not facts.

I never argued symbols cause harm.

Yesterday your issue was that when I answered your question I did not include additional editorial comments about why I thought that answer was a lie. That was irrelevant to the question you asked and a distraction to the actual answer. You argue with what people don't say even when it is irrelevant.

I never repeated any untruths as being true but you have stated many incorrect assertions today regarding constitutional law and the court case involving the Confederate flag.

To equate child custody issues with claiming the flag is harmful to adults is the biggest lie and was long ago determined by the courts to be protected by the 1st amendment.

To then claim the NY case sets precedent for the country in noncustodial cases is beyond belief and I don't think you really believe it. You get caught up in your arguments that you make personal crusades.

 

[Matt Dillon]

So, remember yesterday when we talked about your responsibility to the truth and how you have a bad habit of repeating untruths or half-truths that you think don't need to be qualified by anything?

That's what you're doing here.

And regardless of what came before, the issue NOW is that symbol causes harm to the child, which is why it was ordered to be removed.

So you've been arguing both that symbols do cause harm, and don't cause harm, and you've argued both depending on how your argument is faring at any given time.

Fuck your clown world bullshit.

 

[LV426]

Because that is not correct. It is only an issue in declaring her home the child's primary residence. If she did not want her home to be the primary residence the court would not even be hearing the case. So, the rock would not be a problem if the two parents retained joint custody.

Right, so Flash, the court ruled that her home was not in the child's best interests, and they made a point to call that specific symbol out.

So that means the symbol is more than just a symbol, doesn't it?

It means that symbol negatively affects the welfare of the child, so the symbol most definitely causes harm.

It causes so much harm that the court felt the symbol needed to be completely gone in order to serve the best interests of the child.

So a court ruled that flag or symbol or whatever you want to call it, had to be removed.

 

[LV426]

The court never said the rock could cause harm. It said it was not in the best interest of the child.

What about it isn't in the child's best interest?

 

[LV426]

The court never said the woman would lose custody if she did not remove the rock. It said it was a change in the home conditions and it would be one factor in considering the child's best interests.

LOL...

Flash, you're just saying the same thing.

OMFG. You are really fuckin' petty aren't you?

 

[LV426]

Further,and viewed pragmatically, the presence of the confederate flag is a symbol inflaming the already strained relationship between the parties. As such, while recognizing that the First Amendment protects the mother's right to display the flag (see generally People v Hollman, 68 NY2d 202, 205 [1986]), if it is not removed by June 1, 2021, its continued presence shall constitute a change in circumstances and Family Court shall factor this into any future best interests analysis."

Right, so she has to remove the flag because it's harming her child.

 

[LV426]

The court does not require the woman to remove the rock to retain custody, only that it is one factor to be considered.

If she doesn't remove it, does she get custody of the kid?

 

[LV426]

I never said that and it is not superseded by the welfare of children.

Yes you did, moron, when you posted that the court said she had to remove that symbol because it wasn't in the best interests of the child.

So the court is literally telling you that child's welfare carries more Legal weight than her 1A right to fly that flag.

And also, you lied when you said I lied that a judge couldn't force you to take a flag down.

If a family has ten children and a yard full of Confederate and Nazi flags they have the same constitutional right as all other U. S. residents.

Maybe not anymore thanks to this decision.

Maybe now a case can be made that those flags are harming those children, and those children's welfare is viewed by the court as superseding any tortured interpretation of the 1A.

Like, one of their neighbors could sue them and force those flags down because of the negative impact to their welfare.

The court is not determining if the rock is harmful to the child as the main issue.

The court said in very plain terms that symbol affects the welfare of the child SO MUCH that it has to be removed in order for the child to be in her custody.

You've been arguing, off and on, that symbols both do and do not cause harm.

Then, when you realized what the court was saying in this specific case, you moved the parameters around to say that the court didn't say it caused harm, but rather negatively impacts that child's welfare. Which is just another way to say it causes harm, because HOW does something negatively impact your welfare without causing your harm in some way?

 

[LV426]

A court never ruled that flag harms a child and if the rock is not removed she could still have her home as the primary residence (for purposes of school attendance).

Right, she just can't have her kid there because that symbol isn't in the best interests of the child (aka IT CAUSES HARM).

If she is willing to retain joint custody there is no issue with the rock.

Well, problem is that's not what she's willing to do, and because she's not willing to do that, has to remove that symbol per the court order for the best interests of the child.

So...a judge ordered someone to remove their Confederate bullshit, AND SAID that it causes harm to the child because it's not in the child's best interests. You said that was a lie. But now you're wrong. The only one who lied here was you.

 

[LV426]

The federal courts have already ruled regarding adults. 1st amendment free speech outweighs any claim you have that your feelings are hurt.

It's not about hurt feelings, it's about causing harm.

 

[LV426]

I'm sure this prediction will be as accurate as your predictions about Trump canceling or delaying the election

Well, that's the thing about predictions...sometimes they're wrong.

But one thing predictions aren't are lies.

hose lawsuits could only occur in NY since that is the only place precedent is established.

For now. So in the state of NY, a judge can order you to remove your Confederate trash because it's harmful to children.

And once that first domino falls....

Do you think NY has many adults who have parents who are fighting over their custody that have Confederate flags in their yard?

I don't know, Upstate NY gets pretty shitty and rednecky once you leave the greater NYC metro area. Long Island too. There were a lot of New Yorkers who were arrested for attempting a coup on 1/6.

And...also...THIS CASE WAS IN NY.

 

[LV426]

In determining child custody the court looks at the totality of the child's circumstances including living conditions and many different factors. In that particular case the court also discussed the stability of the home since both parents had moved several times, school attendance...

Right, but the court specifically called out that racist symbol.

Now, why would the court do that if, as you say, symbols don't cause harm?

 

[LV426]

Probably not creating conflict but contributing to existing conflict.

OK, so you were just talking out of your ass, then.

I don't know but my guess is that since mother and father are different races the father probably objects to the rock. Being included in the lawsuit illustrates conflict.

Why would the father object to the rock if it's just a symbol that doesn't mean anything and causes no one harm?

And also, you're making another bad faith assumption.

No, I didn't say that. I said the court said it was one factor they would consider in determining the best interest of the child.

But that's a strange factor to consider, isn't it? Especially if it's just a symbol that doesn't mean anything and causes no harm? Must be a much more significant factor than you're letting on, if the court tied specific action to it.

Given that the child is of mixed race, it would seem apparent that the presence of the flag is not in the child's best interests

The mere PRESENCE of the flag is causing harm.

 

[LV426]

That is because you don't read carefully and have little understanding of constitutional law. You argue your opinions and not facts.

Look, you're just making this shit up as you go...like how you made up shit about the conflict between the two parents in order to explain away the stupid thing you said before.

So I don't believe you know much about Constitutional Law, but what you do know is how to bullshit people by making assumptions and then presenting those assumptions as if they were the standard.

I never argued symbols cause harm.

Yes you did when you said the court ordered that symbol to be removed because it was causing harm to the child. Since that's the only thing that wouldn't be in the child's best interests as it relates to that symbol.

Yesterday your issue was that when I answered your question I did not include additional editorial comments about why I thought that answer was a lie.

Exactly, you presented a lie as a legitimate position and didn't think you owed any responsibility to the truth to point out that lie.

hat was irrelevant to the question you asked and a distraction to the actual answer.

No, Flash, YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. You disseminated a lie instead.

I never repeated any untruths as being true but you have stated many incorrect assertions today regarding constitutional law and the court case involving the Confederate flag.

You're the one who thinks "not in the best interest of the child" doesn't mean something is causing that child harm.

To equate child custody issues with claiming the flag is harmful to adults is the biggest lie and was long ago determined by the courts to be protected by the 1st amendment.

No, it actually wasn't, and if a symbol harms a child, then it harms an adult too.

To then claim the NY case sets precedent for the country in noncustodial cases is beyond belief and I don't think you really believe it. You get caught up in your arguments that you make personal crusades.

OK Flash, believe your bullshit all you'd like. Just don't come crying to the board when more Confederate Flags are ordered down by state courts.