Hardwick is added to the list.

[realibrad]

Have at it. I'm not the arbiter of your time and energy.

I'm also not doing much in all this. I'm just trying to get out of the way of the people who are, and if I can move anyone else from their path towards greater justice, then I'll give it a shot. But I'm not particularly important in this fight. Are you?

The individual never does much relative to the group. But, without individuals, you dont have a group now do you?

 

[Bird222]

This is not that. Do you only live by blanket rules?

Sounds like it to me when you talk of 'some innocent guys will get screwed oh well'. No I don't live by blanket rules but I try to be consistent in my thinking unless there is a good reason not to.

 

[Younigue]

The way this forum works for me, it would be almost impossible to see a shift. We have short bursts of discussions and then leave it. You will never see me discussing things with other people for days after.

How could I also leave no room to be wrong, and, have been wrong and admitted it?

I for sure thought Trump would lose, I got that one very wrong.

I thought that the FED doing quantitative easing would cause inflation, did not happen.

I thought that the Earth's core would cool before the sun expanded and consumed it, got that wrong.

All of those things happened on this Forum and I admitted to all of them.



I'm not asking them to see my world. Im challenging them and their positions with my position. I then judge if mine worked better, or if mine failed and why. You only get a small view of my personal life.



You misunderstand. I think he considers me valuable enough to respond to. Why else would he do it?

We're talking about feelings here as well brad. And if your feelings are ever changed you do not say as much. Our interactions are limited to this forum therefore that is all we have to glean from regarding each other's personalities. You do not present as someone trying to learn (though I think you at least believe you want to) you present as someone trying to teach with out consent. Before you jump on what your typical answer would be consider first that teaching can also occur just by simply stating how you feel or what your opinion is about a thing. Again you have made yourself perfectly clear. I only disagree with you partially. If society was designed to fix all things all at once I'd be all for it. Given that it can not I also partially agree with Jackstar.

 

[Younigue]

And acceptance of imperfection can lead to unneeded harm.

And much needed good. Don't forget that part brad.

 

[Younigue]

Sounds like it to me when you talk of 'some innocent guys will get screwed oh well'. No I don't live by blanket rules but I try to be consistent in my thinking unless there is a good reason not to.

And yet you live in a world where "good reason not to" consistently presents itself.

 

[jackstar7]

You misunderstand.

This is a totally unrelated note to the larger conversaion, but as the communicator, it is your responsibility to own whether or not your message was received as you intended.

You could have easily said, "Sorry, I wasn't clear, what I meant is..." rather than putting the onus to understand you on your audience and accusing them of being in error.

 

[jackstar7]

And acceptance of imperfection can lead to unneeded harm.

Have you found data on the harm done by false claims?

 

[realibrad]

We're talking about feelings here as well brad. And if your feelings are ever changed you do not say as much. Our interactions are limited to this forum therefore that is all we have to glean from regarding each other's personalities. You do not present as someone trying to learn (though I think you at least believe you want to) you present as someone trying to teach with out consent. Before you jump on what your typical answer would be consider first that teaching can also occur just by simply stating how you feel or what your opinion is about a thing. Again you have made yourself perfectly clear. I only disagree with you partially. If society was designed to fix all things all at once I'd be all for it. Given that it can not I also partially agree with Jackstar.

Society is finally shifting on this, so, why advocate for turning the table, rather than what you and I want?

 

[realibrad]

And much needed good. Don't forget that part brad.

How do you mean?

 

[jackstar7]

Society is finally shifting on this, so, why advocate for turning the table, rather than what you and I want?

You say advocate, yet I say accept.

 

[realibrad]

This is a totally unrelated note to the larger conversaion, but as the communicator, it is your responsibility to own whether or not your message was received as you intended.

You could have easily said, "Sorry, I wasn't clear, what I meant is..." rather than putting the onus to understand you on your audience and accusing them of being in error.

No. Sometimes its the speaker that made a mistake, sometimes it was the listener that made a mistake, and sometimes its the limited functions of language. The speaker does not have the onus inherently.

Further, I never said it was her fault, but, as a mater of fact she did misunderstand. It could have been my fault, hers, or nobody's. It ultimately did not matter so I did not dig into that. What matters is that she misunderstood and I was willing to try to explain.

 

[realibrad]

Have you found data on the harm done by false claims?

Yes, a data point of 1.

Also, I'm not going down that road as my position was never that false claims were larger than legitimate.

 

[realibrad]

You say advocate, yet I say accept.

Now who is quibbling?

Society has not shifted yet, so when you say you think it should, you are advocating. But again, why would we want to advocate or accept something when we have a better option.

You also never answered my question. Are you wanting to default to guilty when there is no evidence to prove/disprove?

 

[jackstar7]

No. Sometimes its the speaker that made a mistake, sometimes it was the listener that made a mistake, and sometimes its the limited functions of language. The speaker does not have the onus inherently.

Further, I never said it was her fault, but, as a mater of fact she did misunderstand. It could have been my fault, hers, or nobody's. It ultimately did not matter so I did not dig into that. What matters is that she misunderstood and I was willing to try to explain.

You're not speaking. You're writing.

 

[jackstar7]

Yes, a data point of 1.

Also, I'm not going down that road as my position was never that false claims were larger than legitimate.

Indeed you never did.

So how should victims come forward? It should be privately to police then and no one should know about it until it has been adjudicated?

That seems... irresponsible. As a for instance, suppose someone is in a position to be potentially abusing many people. Are the others who could be prey to this person not owed warning?

 

[jackstar7]

Now who is quibbling?

Society has not shifted yet, so when you say you think it should, you are advocating. But again, why would we want to advocate or accept something when we have a better option.

You also never answered my question. Are you wanting to default to guilty when there is no evidence to prove/disprove?

I wonder why I'm not answering your stupid question.

 

[realibrad]

You're not speaking. You're writing.

Again with the hypocrisy. BTW, you are wrong. Enjoy that.

 

[jackstar7]

Again with the hypocrisy. BTW, you are wrong. Enjoy that.

You can't make me.

 

[realibrad]

Indeed you never did.

So how should victims come forward? It should be privately to police then and no one should know about it until it has been adjudicated?

That seems... irresponsible. As a for instance, suppose someone is in a position to be potentially abusing many people. Are the others who could be prey to this person not owed warning?

You just asked an incredibly complex question. A question that I would like to answer, but it would take time.

It also misses the point of what I have been saying.

You want people to treat the claim as fact until its proven false. That is a bad idea, because people make a judgement and then often move on. Sometimes the harm is small, and sometimes it ruins lives.

How many people know of the lady that sued McDonald's over the coffee being too hot? How many of those think she was being petty and looking for a quick buck? How many of those same people know that the coffee was so hot and burned her so badly it almost killed her?

The point is, that if society is going to shift on how it treats these situations, then why not push for the best thing when it can reasonably happen. That is, to advocate for people wanting more than just a claim of guilt and or innocence?

 

[jackstar7]

Largely because your way keeps the burden on the people who have predominantly (90+% of the time) been assaulted/abused/victimized.

And I think what you're advocating for in unrealistic, so I prefer to pursue things that can happen and favor the most of the least powerful.

 

[Younigue]

How do you mean?

That imperfection can be an excellent teacher.

 

[Younigue]

You're not speaking. You're writing.

Don't be that guy jack.

 

[Younigue]

Again with the hypocrisy. BTW, you are wrong. Enjoy that.

Don't be that guy brad.

 

[Younigue]

You can't make me.

Just on principle don't you ever!

 

[Younigue]

You just asked an incredibly complex question. A question that I would like to answer, but it would take time.

It also misses the point of what I have been saying.

You want people to treat the claim as fact until its proven false. That is a bad idea, because people make a judgement and then often move on. Sometimes the harm is small, and sometimes it ruins lives.

How many people know of the lady that sued McDonald's over the coffee being too hot? How many of those think she was being petty and looking for a quick buck? How many of those same people know that the coffee was so hot and burned her so badly it almost killed her?

The point is, that if society is going to shift on how it treats these situations, then why not push for the best thing when it can reasonably happen. That is, to advocate for people wanting more than just a claim of guilt and or innocence?

Because it's true that change occurs on many fronts. Right Fighters come in all shapes and sizes.