|
Noah -> RE: A Cautionary Tale (6/19/2006 10:15:35 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: timeoutgurlie
I'm aparently the only one who thinks what she did wasn't horrible.
I doubt she intended to be 'deceitful', but there aren't any ways you can see what someone you're talking to online would do and jumping from online to real life without any security has to be impossible for many people. For her, this is what works, for others a different route.
Just because you disagree/the action isn't right for you doesn't mean those who choose a route other than your own are terrible people [&:]
You doubt she intended to be "deceitful"? She lied, systematically over a considerable period of time. You can't imagine that she did this "accidentally" so what can you mean by claiming that she didn't mean to lie? How can her deceit be seen as anything but intentional? Do you mean she just meant to be clever and didn't notice that her choice of action was wrong in itself and hypocritical besides?
As for judging people who take a different route ...I disagree with child molesting, rape, murder, and several other things. If someone tells me they molested a child--not to be a bad person, but just to verify whether I was a child molester, well sweety, that person, who "chose that route" is a terrible person in my view. Post in her defense if you like.
And the "who are you to judge" question get;s no traction here. No one's standards but those of the person being judged need be applied. It makes no difference whether she was wrong by my standards or the original poster's standards when she was indisputably wrong by her own standards. She failed the test she was adminstering to someone else. The veracity test.
If you want friends who have strong values and who violate them egregiously in order to see if other people share them, that's cool. Please don't ask us all to ride that bus.
I didn't say that the OP's correspondent was a terrible person. I said she's terrribly suited to a place in my life. Heaven knows what events contributed to forming her as a person who lies to catch liars. And the sin is a far lesser one than child molesting as we can all agree.
Each of us has a right and a duty to decide for ourselves whom we wish to associate with. The Original Poster explained his choice not to associate with this person. A sensible explanation for a sensible choice, in my view.
As for " but there aren't any ways ... " this is simply false. There are inumerable ways and many of us have employed them many times. They may take imagination if one hasn't been shown them by someone more experienced. They do take effort. But to surrrender your integrity in your search for integrity just isn't kosher, and before being wrong its, well, stupid.
If there truly "aren't any ways" to safely meet with someone you first encountered online then meet someone in the coffee shop. If there aren't any ways or to make your car payment, give up your car. "There aren't any ways" doesn't justify deceit online any more than it justifies stealing your car payment money.
|
|
|
|
