Victims of pedophile priests and imams help create more vict
12 Feb 2016, 6:56 pm
I think doing what one can to facilitate and reassure and encourage victims of abuse coming forward is a necessity.
I think, given the specific nature of the crime, criticising the victims for not coming forward is insulting, and possibly counterproductive.
In such cases, I think the victim's priority is to hold themselves and their sanity together. Ideally, we can make it so society makes room for these people to tell their stories, for their burdens to be shared and borne.
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.
12 Feb 2016, 6:57 pm
GnosticBishop wrote:
beakybird wrote:
I think to say they are contributing to the problem is wrong. But I understand what you're getting at.
If your statement was "Abuse victims aren't helping the way they could by staying silent" I'd agree wholeheartedly.
You also aren't accounting for the embarrassment factor. It must be extremely embarrassing to admit that was done to you, even though you had zero to do with it. By bringing it to light they suffer the indignity twice. I'm sure most of them don't want to help, never asked to be part of any cause, and don't give a damn who else it happens to because they just want to move on with their damaged lives.
And experiencing that trauma who can blame them?
Today it's very common in our "See something, say something" world we associate silence with being as bad as perpetuating a crime. I feel this thinking is utterly ridiculous. I think it is everyone's right to mind their own business and there's nothing wrong with that. I am responsible for no one but myself. Someone else's problems don't have to be mine, I have enough of my own.
If your statement was "Abuse victims aren't helping the way they could by staying silent" I'd agree wholeheartedly.
You also aren't accounting for the embarrassment factor. It must be extremely embarrassing to admit that was done to you, even though you had zero to do with it. By bringing it to light they suffer the indignity twice. I'm sure most of them don't want to help, never asked to be part of any cause, and don't give a damn who else it happens to because they just want to move on with their damaged lives.
And experiencing that trauma who can blame them?
Today it's very common in our "See something, say something" world we associate silence with being as bad as perpetuating a crime. I feel this thinking is utterly ridiculous. I think it is everyone's right to mind their own business and there's nothing wrong with that. I am responsible for no one but myself. Someone else's problems don't have to be mine, I have enough of my own.
I cannot agree with you.
As citizens, we all have responsibilities to each other and the law recognizes that.
If you mind your own business at the wrong time, or another minds his own business when he can help you out of a hard spot, then the law should come down on you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
Regards
DL
I guess we just have different opinions then. I don't have a responsibility to anyone but me and my own. I don't care about anyone else for the most part. And I don't feel the slightest bit wrong about that.
For example, if I see someone committing a violent crime, and report it, who's responsible if my family receives retribution? I am. My family and friends are infinitely more important to me than a stranger. My first responsibility is to them. I'd rather 1000 strangers get hurt than one of my family. If any action can put my loved ones at risk, then I feel my obligation is to THEM not a stranger.
In this context, if I have been victimized, and my life irreparably damaged as a result. I owe nothing to no one. My responsibility is to myself, to get through it as best I can. For some this comes in the form of helping assure that the same things do not happen to others. And they should be commended for doing so. But for others it means separating themselves as much as they can from the trauma and move on.
From my interpretation of the links you posted, these are not laws. At least not for me. Duty to rescue is not in effect in the US, where I live. So the law does not agree here. And I wouldn't really care if it did. Complying with all of the law is not exactly my strong point. I follow the law of what's right to me. Any adherence I have for the law is because I either agree or fear I cannot avoid punishment. For me, I have zero moral obligation to follow the law. Again, different opinions. I respect yours, just don't agree.
The Good Samaritan Law just appears to protect emergency workers from lawsuits that may arise from injuries people sustain during rescues. Makes sense to me. But it's not the law agreeing with your perspective.
13 Feb 2016, 12:01 pm
Hopper wrote:
I think doing what one can to facilitate and reassure and encourage victims of abuse coming forward is a necessity.
I think, given the specific nature of the crime, criticising the victims for not coming forward is insulting, and possibly counterproductive.
In such cases, I think the victim's priority is to hold themselves and their sanity together. Ideally, we can make it so society makes room for these people to tell their stories, for their burdens to be shared and borne.
I think, given the specific nature of the crime, criticising the victims for not coming forward is insulting, and possibly counterproductive.
In such cases, I think the victim's priority is to hold themselves and their sanity together. Ideally, we can make it so society makes room for these people to tell their stories, for their burdens to be shared and borne.
You show your good heart while ignoring all the future victims that silence creates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
Societies have Good Samaritan and Duty to rescue laws for good and moral reasons. Yet most here are not recognizing the duty being ignored by not laying charges and just taking the payoff.
If I was a pedophile priest or imam, I would be smiling. I would love the idea that most people saw sex crimes against children as a form of prostitution where the price is negotiated by the parents after the crime.
Sham on those parents.
Regards
DL
13 Feb 2016, 12:08 pm
beakybird wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
beakybird wrote:
I think to say they are contributing to the problem is wrong. But I understand what you're getting at.
If your statement was "Abuse victims aren't helping the way they could by staying silent" I'd agree wholeheartedly.
You also aren't accounting for the embarrassment factor. It must be extremely embarrassing to admit that was done to you, even though you had zero to do with it. By bringing it to light they suffer the indignity twice. I'm sure most of them don't want to help, never asked to be part of any cause, and don't give a damn who else it happens to because they just want to move on with their damaged lives.
And experiencing that trauma who can blame them?
Today it's very common in our "See something, say something" world we associate silence with being as bad as perpetuating a crime. I feel this thinking is utterly ridiculous. I think it is everyone's right to mind their own business and there's nothing wrong with that. I am responsible for no one but myself. Someone else's problems don't have to be mine, I have enough of my own.
If your statement was "Abuse victims aren't helping the way they could by staying silent" I'd agree wholeheartedly.
You also aren't accounting for the embarrassment factor. It must be extremely embarrassing to admit that was done to you, even though you had zero to do with it. By bringing it to light they suffer the indignity twice. I'm sure most of them don't want to help, never asked to be part of any cause, and don't give a damn who else it happens to because they just want to move on with their damaged lives.
And experiencing that trauma who can blame them?
Today it's very common in our "See something, say something" world we associate silence with being as bad as perpetuating a crime. I feel this thinking is utterly ridiculous. I think it is everyone's right to mind their own business and there's nothing wrong with that. I am responsible for no one but myself. Someone else's problems don't have to be mine, I have enough of my own.
I cannot agree with you.
As citizens, we all have responsibilities to each other and the law recognizes that.
If you mind your own business at the wrong time, or another minds his own business when he can help you out of a hard spot, then the law should come down on you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
Regards
DL
I guess we just have different opinions then. I don't have a responsibility to anyone but me and my own. I don't care about anyone else for the most part. And I don't feel the slightest bit wrong about that.
For example, if I see someone committing a violent crime, and report it, who's responsible if my family receives retribution? I am. My family and friends are infinitely more important to me than a stranger. My first responsibility is to them. I'd rather 1000 strangers get hurt than one of my family. If any action can put my loved ones at risk, then I feel my obligation is to THEM not a stranger.
In this context, if I have been victimized, and my life irreparably damaged as a result. I owe nothing to no one. My responsibility is to myself, to get through it as best I can. For some this comes in the form of helping assure that the same things do not happen to others. And they should be commended for doing so. But for others it means separating themselves as much as they can from the trauma and move on.
From my interpretation of the links you posted, these are not laws. At least not for me. Duty to rescue is not in effect in the US, where I live. So the law does not agree here. And I wouldn't really care if it did. Complying with all of the law is not exactly my strong point. I follow the law of what's right to me. Any adherence I have for the law is because I either agree or fear I cannot avoid punishment. For me, I have zero moral obligation to follow the law. Again, different opinions. I respect yours, just don't agree.
The Good Samaritan Law just appears to protect emergency workers from lawsuits that may arise from injuries people sustain during rescues. Makes sense to me. But it's not the law agreeing with your perspective.
The first moral tenet --- basically accepted by all peoples and faiths and the base of all good law, -- is to do unto others.
A shame you choose to ignore it.
You say all you care about is you and yours, --- but yours, if a young person who becomes a victim because a previous victim has not done unto others, and who knows how many more, will suffer if all follow your self-centered morality.
Regards
DL
13 Feb 2016, 12:18 pm
GnosticBishop wrote:
Hopper wrote:
I think doing what one can to facilitate and reassure and encourage victims of abuse coming forward is a necessity.
I think, given the specific nature of the crime, criticising the victims for not coming forward is insulting, and possibly counterproductive.
In such cases, I think the victim's priority is to hold themselves and their sanity together. Ideally, we can make it so society makes room for these people to tell their stories, for their burdens to be shared and borne.
I think, given the specific nature of the crime, criticising the victims for not coming forward is insulting, and possibly counterproductive.
In such cases, I think the victim's priority is to hold themselves and their sanity together. Ideally, we can make it so society makes room for these people to tell their stories, for their burdens to be shared and borne.
You show your good heart while ignoring all the future victims that silence creates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
Societies have Good Samaritan and Duty to rescue laws for good and moral reasons. Yet most here are not recognizing the duty being ignored by not laying charges and just taking the payoff.
If I was a pedophile priest or imam, I would be smiling. I would love the idea that most people saw sex crimes against children as a form of prostitution where the price is negotiated by the parents after the crime.
Shame on those parents.
Regards
DL
13 Feb 2016, 12:53 pm
I'm not ignoring the future victims. I'm well aware how things like this happen.
I am all for making it as easy as possible for people who have been abused to come forward, and in encouraging them to do so - we are still quite some way from this, so let's try that first. I do not think it is fair or appropriate to heap moral opprobrium on abuse victims who do not come forward. Indeed, as I say, it only seems counterproductive.
Nor do I agree that suing or accepting compensation for abuse is akin to prostituting one's child. I think anyone who thinks such is plain wrong in the head. The only response I can think of is not to be found in words or arguments, but in a look of wearied, pitying disgust.
I've said my piece, and we are clearly not going to come to any agreement here, so I shall bow out.
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.
13 Feb 2016, 1:25 pm
GnosticBishop wrote:
The first moral tenet --- basically accepted by all peoples and faiths and the base of all good law, -- is to do unto others.
A shame you choose to ignore it.
You say all you care about is you and yours, --- but yours, if a young person who becomes a victim because a previous victim has not done unto others, and who knows how many more, will suffer if all follow your self-centered morality.
Regards
DL
It's not self-centered morality. It's prioritizing appropriately in my opinion. I don't believe you don't help people at all. Despite my anger issues I have relatively good will towards people even if I have to sometimes fake my way through it. If I can reasonably help another person I'm usually eager to do so. However, in more crucial situations, by obligation is to myself and the people that care about me first and everyone else second.
If the basis of moral tenets is do unto others, the basis of physical survival is take care of yourself and your own. Be that your family, tribe, direct community, individuals with like struggles, however large a circle each person chooses to draw.
I also do not ignore it. Do unto others is actually a foundational principle for me. Where we disagree is that principle's practical application. You're saying people who choose to not speak out publicly against sexual abuses are somehow violating that principle. I do not believe they are. The ideal of do unto others has to be balanced by pragmatic application. At least in my personal view.
13 Feb 2016, 1:44 pm
Hopper wrote:
I'm not ignoring the future victims. I'm well aware how things like this happen.
I am all for making it as easy as possible for people who have been abused to come forward, and in encouraging them to do so - we are still quite some way from this, so let's try that first. I do not think it is fair or appropriate to heap moral opprobrium on abuse victims who do not come forward. Indeed, as I say, it only seems counterproductive.
Nor do I agree that suing or accepting compensation for abuse is akin to prostituting one's child. I think anyone who thinks such is plain wrong in the head. The only response I can think of is not to be found in words or arguments, but in a look of wearied, pitying disgust.
I've said my piece, and we are clearly not going to come to any agreement here, so I shall bow out.
I am all for making it as easy as possible for people who have been abused to come forward, and in encouraging them to do so - we are still quite some way from this, so let's try that first. I do not think it is fair or appropriate to heap moral opprobrium on abuse victims who do not come forward. Indeed, as I say, it only seems counterproductive.
Nor do I agree that suing or accepting compensation for abuse is akin to prostituting one's child. I think anyone who thinks such is plain wrong in the head. The only response I can think of is not to be found in words or arguments, but in a look of wearied, pitying disgust.
I've said my piece, and we are clearly not going to come to any agreement here, so I shall bow out.
Strange that you do not see sex for cash as prostitution but yes, we will not agree.
Regards
DL
13 Feb 2016, 2:28 pm
beakybird wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
The first moral tenet --- basically accepted by all peoples and faiths and the base of all good law, -- is to do unto others.
A shame you choose to ignore it.
You say all you care about is you and yours, --- but yours, if a young person who becomes a victim because a previous victim has not done unto others, and who knows how many more, will suffer if all follow your self-centered morality.
Regards
DL
It's not self-centered morality. It's prioritizing appropriately in my opinion. I don't believe you don't help people at all. Despite my anger issues I have relatively good will towards people even if I have to sometimes fake my way through it. If I can reasonably help another person I'm usually eager to do so. However, in more crucial situations, by obligation is to myself and the people that care about me first and everyone else second.
If the basis of moral tenets is do unto others, the basis of physical survival is take care of yourself and your own. Be that your family, tribe, direct community, individuals with like struggles, however large a circle each person chooses to draw.
I also do not ignore it. Do unto others is actually a foundational principle for me. Where we disagree is that principle's practical application. You're saying people who choose to not speak out publicly against sexual abuses are somehow violating that principle. I do not believe they are. The ideal of do unto others has to be balanced by pragmatic application. At least in my personal view.
Thanks for what I read as basically a recant of your reply. You will likely see it as just expanding on the theme.
No problem though. Lets move on.
With doing unto others in mind, I hope you can agree that if you have any young in your family, others doing unto them would include informing them to any pedophiles in your area. From my POV, that information would mostly come from victims who go public to warn others as they should have been warned by those who did not do so.
We have to end the sickle of abuse somewhere and that can only come from exposing it publicly.
Regards
DL
13 Feb 2016, 2:55 pm
beakybird wrote:
I disagree with this. Why is it their responsibility? They were a victim. ANYTHING they choose to do to help themselves, including trying to forget it ever happened and taking money to help them do that, is fine with me.
It's not their job to prevent future rapes. Their responsibility is to themselves to try and bear the trauma in the best way they can. End of story. I fail to see how it can be interpreted any other way.
It's not their job to prevent future rapes. Their responsibility is to themselves to try and bear the trauma in the best way they can. End of story. I fail to see how it can be interpreted any other way.
How can you be so black and white on this? I think this kind of thinking is flawed. No, not end of story, not for other victims.
This is the problem with the whole "no victim blaming" brigade. It promotes very simplistic thinking that ultimately doesn't help victims. Few people want to blame victims out of spite, but certain ideas should be challenged. We all have some responsibility as adults. Of course we also need to understand the fear, and try to bridge the gap.
There is also criminal responsibility sometimes, if people are knowingly complicit in covering up crimes.
I think this thinking promotes misconceptions of abuse. Abuse can be intergenerational, this is backed up by evidence. It can also be reciprical sometimes. Yes I know this is an uncomfortable thought. It more likely to be reciprocal in adults though. However children can be influenced to abuse others sometimes.
If you want to prevent further abuse, being too simplistic about it is not goign to help.
One misconception of abuse end always ends in PTSD. The reality is is only some people who suffer psychological trauma develop PTSD, others can experience other mental illnesses.
Another misconception is trigger warning are helpful in the treatment of PTSD. The evidence debunks this.
Political correctness doesn't help victims.
13 Feb 2016, 3:06 pm
I agree with this last and would point out that, to a victim, his parents taking a payoff to compensate for the abuse is not going to give the victim the closure that his mind seeks. To me, that is parents putting money ahead of the good mental health of their children. If they are knowingly doing so then may they rot in hell.
Regards
DL
13 Feb 2016, 3:11 pm
IMO "closure" is a meaningless concept. It certainly not a legal concept as it is sometime presented, along with retribution, which doesn't exist as an objective in western law for good reason.
I understand what is mean by it. Basically freedom from torment. This is something entirely individual, however those that treat those individual have some experience of what can work, hopefully.
13 Feb 2016, 3:27 pm
0_equals_true wrote:
IMO "closure" is a meaningless concept. It certainly not a legal concept as it is sometime presented, along with retribution, which doesn't exist as an objective in western law for good reason.
I understand what is mean by it. Basically freedom from torment. This is something entirely individual, however those that treat those individual have some experience of what can work, hopefully.
I understand what is mean by it. Basically freedom from torment. This is something entirely individual, however those that treat those individual have some experience of what can work, hopefully.
I will not derail too far here but would like to expand on this.
If retribution or vengeance is not a part of our legal system, why do we keep a one time murderer in jail for so long, knowing, statically and psychologically, that they will not ever do another crime.
Crimes like murders of passion or accidental killings from negligence are what I have in mind.
Regards
DL
13 Feb 2016, 3:40 pm
0_equals_true wrote:
beakybird wrote:
I disagree with this. Why is it their responsibility? They were a victim. ANYTHING they choose to do to help themselves, including trying to forget it ever happened and taking money to help them do that, is fine with me.
It's not their job to prevent future rapes. Their responsibility is to themselves to try and bear the trauma in the best way they can. End of story. I fail to see how it can be interpreted any other way.
It's not their job to prevent future rapes. Their responsibility is to themselves to try and bear the trauma in the best way they can. End of story. I fail to see how it can be interpreted any other way.
How can you be so black and white on this? I think this kind of thinking is flawed. No, not end of story, not for other victims.
This is the problem with the whole "no victim blaming" brigade. It promotes very simplistic thinking that ultimately doesn't help victims. Few people want to blame victims out of spite, but certain ideas should be challenged. We all have some responsibility as adults. Of course we also need to understand the fear, and try to bridge the gap.
There is also criminal responsibility sometimes, if people are knowingly complicit in covering up crimes.
I think this thinking promotes misconceptions of abuse. Abuse can be intergenerational, this is backed up by evidence. It can also be reciprical sometimes. Yes I know this is an uncomfortable thought. It more likely to be reciprocal in adults though. However children can be influenced to abuse others sometimes.
If you want to prevent further abuse, being too simplistic about it is not goign to help.
One misconception of abuse end always ends in PTSD. The reality is is only some people who suffer psychological trauma develop PTSD, others can experience other mental illnesses.
Another misconception is trigger warning are helpful in the treatment of PTSD. The evidence debunks this.
Political correctness doesn't help victims.
I'm really not part of any "brigade". At least not that I'm aware of. For me this is more a matter of how much privacy and distance victim should be entitled to. I don't understand how a young child (or an adult abused as a child) gets somehow pulled into advocacy based on the fact they were victimized. That simply does not make any sense to me.
Knowingly covering up a crime is participation. Choosing to not involve your self in the affairs of another is minding your own business.
I'm not talking anything about political correctness here, believe me. That's not typically something I do outside of normal good taste in mixed company.
13 Feb 2016, 4:31 pm
GnosticBishop wrote:
If retribution or vengeance is not a part of our legal system, why do we keep a one time murderer in jail for so long, knowing, statically and psychologically, that they will not ever do another crime.
This depend on the country. It can be to do with punishment. Personal retribution is different from legal sentencing.
It can be down to perception of deterrent, rightly or wrongly.
We don't have law of the victim. We have law of the land and all of its subjects, which includes victims but not individually.
13 Feb 2016, 4:42 pm
0_equals_true wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
If retribution or vengeance is not a part of our legal system, why do we keep a one time murderer in jail for so long, knowing, statically and psychologically, that they will not ever do another crime.
This depend on the country. It can be to do with punishment. Personal retribution is different from legal sentencing.
It can be down to perception of deterrent, rightly or wrongly.
We don't have law of the victim. We have law of the land and all of its subjects, which includes victims but not individually.
Strange separation of victim and individual as all victims are individuals but, as I suspected, we would deflect way too far to carry this on here. Thanks though.
Regards
DL
