Focus50
Posts: 3962
Joined: 12/28/2004
From: Newcastle, Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah
The facts of the case were never at issue. My reaction was to Suzanne's own perceptions and apparent responses. I took her at her word that she believed this man to be the rapist of her child. I indicated that I was addressing her response rather than the underlying facts by saying "...as far as you know."
She wrote: "one of my local groups" (emphasis added) which gave me the impression that this was a group with which she currently identifies and is presumably active. She has since responded to clarify that this is not the case. She meant soemthing like "a group in my local area." I had misread her and I'm glad she has taken the trouble to clarify.
Please note that I never said "here is a bad person." I limited my response to a description of my own visceral reaction to the idea of a parent socializing with her child's rapist. I didn't block her nor call for any action against her on the part of others.
That was the idea I held at the time of my post: that a mother was socializing with a person she believed to be her child's rapist. Whether or not the facts support the mother's belief, that idea is indeed repugnant to me. If a concise, objective description of my subjective reaction is melodramatic then there it is.
I take it that by your rules no one should stand in judgement of any behavior in regard to which he does not know "all the circumstances pre, during or post." And you seem a reasonable and moderate person so I don't take you to mean literally all the facts but at least some well-rounded view from more than one side.
In fact the poster and her partner did not have all the facts even under such a modest standard. They were not present at the scene of the rape and apparently did not have the accused's side of the story, nor are third party accounts of this rape nor objective evidence pointed to. Yet even without a well rounded view of this particular event they judged that something wrong had happened and they took a measure of action in response. I suspect that you think this is was it should have been. I certainly do.
I think, Focus, that in fact neither you nor I necessarily waits until we know all the facts before evaluating a behavior. In some cases we both take action without all of the facts. For instance you judged the poster's responses here (favorably) without knowing all circumstances surrounding them, and you took the action of saying so publicly. You also took the trouble to criticise my post without knowing all circumstances, etc, etc.
I think that your behavior was fine, by the way, even laudable. I have appreciated your point of view in this thread as well as others. I only point out that the way you frame your ethical standard (the business about not proceeding without all the facts) seems simplistic and thin compared to the way you conduct yourself, which seems well measured and robust.
Yes my comment was strong, but it was heartfelt. This forum affords the opportunity for dialog and the development and sharing of ideas. I know from e-mails that I wasn't the only one to misread Suzanne in the way I did. It may have been that if I hadn't posted, a number of people would have been left with a false and pretty terrible impression of Suzanne.
I saw something that looked wrong to me and I pointed it out; as did Suzanne; as did you.
I'm glad we can all have this conversation.
Yikes, talk about drowning me in paper-work! lol Seems to be plenty of "smoke & mirrors" here (or "piss & wind", as we say in Oz) but betwixt and between, you make some valid points.... If that seems harsh, I'll explain later....
I certainly make judgements every day, including about other people and often with very little information to go on - everybody does whether they wanna admit it or not! Personally, it's my way of functioning and making everyday decisions but I don't force my ideals onto anyone else (though my sub needs to adopt many of them). Nor am I foolish enough to make my judgements public; again, especially if they're about other people.
I'm not gonna get immersed in the "facts" for the same reason I originally stated of you, I also wasn't there - my own response to the situation was inadequately hypothetical only! I have no experience of being a traumatised rape victim nor a mother's (or father's) trauma in response, so there's some things I don't make judgements on at all and take offense if others do. And I'm aware adopting that position is also an act of judging.
You stike me as an intelligent and thoughtful person but, for all you've posted in response, you never answered my question, hence my "harsh" intro.... It was curiosity that inspired my original "melo-dramatic" comment - you were *literally* sick?
Focus.
|
RE: Terms and Use of techniques - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread