(Untitled)

Oct 13, 2010 22:43

Well this has been an enlightening evening ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 13

magicaddict October 13 2010, 21:47:24 UTC
What about those of us who read what you wrote and deliberately chose not to answer?

I couldn't have given you the right answer had I tried, could I?

Reply


anonymous October 13 2010, 22:31:35 UTC
"The vast majority of people out there have not answered as I expected, most have blindly ignored a cry for help"

I guess that this may have been directed at least partly at me as your first response was "Of all comments, this one upsets me.", but please note that I'd take a cry for help as the same as asking for help. I don't need a form to be filled out or a signature in triplicate, just an indication from the abused that abuse is taking place!

...and always try to remember that no two people's moral code is the same. I doubt Hitler would have ever thought of himself as evil.

Reply

writerdahling October 14 2010, 02:16:29 UTC
just an indication from the abused that abuse is taking place!

Many people who are being abused can not admit it to themselves, let alone others.

Reply

anonymous October 14 2010, 06:07:14 UTC
So... if someone asks me if I'm being abused, and I say no, then they should interfere regardless?

Reply

writerdahling October 14 2010, 06:11:42 UTC
You're taking a very black and white view of that. It depends on the person, really. If a close friend who has observed you in your relationships can see a disturbing trend of you being abused, then yes, I think they should interfere. Urge you to seek help, or contact someone who can. If the person is someone who isn't so close, then it may not be appropriate. Each situation is different, and so it's hard to just say "yes" or "no" to this question.

Reply


anonymous October 13 2010, 22:36:02 UTC
As anonymous commenter number two, I'd like to point out that my statement was about the morality of publicly berating someone for something you believe they did wrong (whether you're right or wrong) without checking their side of the story first. It didn't really aim to give a judgment on the witness' actions.

Reply

anonymous October 14 2010, 17:55:19 UTC
In fact, reading over it again, you didn't ask for any sort of judgement on the witness' actions. What you asked was whether it was right to defend them, and that's the question most people answered.

Defending a friend is not the same as saying that you agree with their actions, so saying that because some people would stick up for the witness means that society thinks their actions are justified is complete rubbish. You're just reading something that isn't there into answers to a completely different question!

Reply

krystal_planet October 14 2010, 22:01:23 UTC
sorry two...

removed

Reply


anonymous October 14 2010, 02:36:52 UTC
Fine. Let's cut out the vox populi, the think tank and the two hour episode of Question Time:

In the situation you describe, the accuser is abusing the witness, therefore it is right to defend the witness because if it was what was expected of the witness it is now expected of the witness' friends. The right thing to do is always the right thing to do. We're all living in a monochrome world and I am a monochrome girl.

Reply


lady_ellinor October 14 2010, 08:46:05 UTC
I saw your question and chose not to answer, partly because I didn't completely grasp what you asked, and also because I can never actually attempt to work out what would happen in a given situation until it happens.

I've thought that I'd react a given way in a certain situation and then, when it happened, reacted completely differently.

All you can ever do is what's right by your morals and your understanding of the situation. If that makes you self-righteous then it makes us all self-righteous.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up