Posted by ray on July 18, 2012 at 08:11:14
In Reply to: Re: Moral questions, perspectives, and rhetorical fallacies posted by excog on July 17, 2012 at 23:59:18:
i think my post to you below may have gone up while u were posting this. i think i have reiterated my single point/perspective to where it is approaching the "ad nauseum" argument your link refers to. enough of that.
you put a lot into this post, but i'll briefly try to share my thoughts on this here. i am getting tired of hearing my own voice in my head.
2. very tragically, i agree. i wish tfi would admit this. i agreed to be interviewed on nat. tv in the wake of it as an fga who was active in the group during the worst of these abuses, and stated categorically that the fam was lying. i did ask to be filmed in silouette, for reasons too long to get into here, but i knew i was risking quite a bit, not just personally, but for my family. it never aired. but yea... bravo to all who did go on air and paid the price. i do not think it likely that p/m will ever plainly acknowledge the truth, tho i have personally urged them to do so for the sake of the victims. no surprise... they did not take the advice.
"resort to the media"... bravo.
should the truth be acknowledged? certainly. my only question is how to treat those still in the process of developing a grasp of the truth.
false dicotomies- did i do that? i several places praised the efforts of those called to expose' efforts. but also feel others may wish/need to prioritize other matters. i don't see sgas as carrying any moral responsibilities to take a particular path. simply coming to terms w/ your experience, esp if born and raised, could take awhile. is your CAPITALIZED opinion the only way? do caps help?
be brusque if you like. but sauce 4 goose/gander. if someone questions the fairness, isn't that ok? (just read the geekpress thing...)
i did not raise the "my way or highway" dichotomy. i suggested there might be another side to the picture. n. hunter bad choice... have acknowledged and apologized. someone else posted to the effect that unless people denounce all ties to group (in context of a parent still in) that they were "fair game." are u down w/ sga recent leavers being fair game? i do not see things this, well, black and white. people are individuals worthy of respect, even if you think they should see things differently. we aren't talking about a perp here, but an sga.
the nazi hunt i've both apologized for and tried to clarify several times elsewhere. not pejorative, but hyperbolic and plain stupid. anyway, i'm all for acknowledging facts. and respecting others in the process of leaving.
"where did that come from?" from the fact that she was being pushed to break ties w/ fam/friends and speak out against tfi etc, or else she was somehow a sympathizer.
"is there some guilt, some residual confusion, some projections and residual cultic thinking fueling all or some of this?" i dunno. care to donate to my therapy fund? (would this be ad hominem?)
choice between pursuing/rebuilding: i was careful to specify "prioritize". i personally was forced to focus pretty full energy on survival issues. big family, no skills, no money. did finally get help working thru issues. have supported w/ time and money efforts to help victims, probably not enough, but i still believe in grace.
justice. blessings on those who work for it. admired julia immensely, and many others who've i've seen stick out there necks. but i do not ask everyone to enlist. i believe in pluralism. i also think that therapists will sometimes, while acknowledging someone may deserve justice, under some circumstances they may not get it. they are encouraged not to hang their healing on it...that only gives more power to the criminal. good luck. if i see p/m or am called to testify, i will summon up my inner clint eastwood and try to do my part. if there is a trial, i'll send a donation to the legal fund. i've tried to fess up, in my legal name, w/ only downside potential to my personal financial/emotional secrity. why am i defending myself?? why am i on trial?
"damage is history"... this was referring to the widely evidenced changes in the control the group exercised in the lives of its followers...not in anyway implying "bygones be bygones".
it's been lovely.
Replies to this Post:
Post a Reply