Re:
Cookie wrote:Tyciol, to clairfy: I NEVER WANTED TO AND SERIOUSLY DISLIKED BEING RAPED, HAVING THINGS TORN AS A 7 YEAR OLD THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW EXISTED, GAGING ON THINGS THAT I SHOULD NEVER HAVE KNOWN EXISTED AT THAT AGE, AND LOSING MY INNOCENCE AND RESPECT FOR ADULTS OR MALES IN GENERAL!!!! do you understand now? this was abuse! and i do not even know their real names, so i cannot ever have justice.
There was no need to clarify, I already got that impression and identified it in my previous post. I don't see losing respect for adults in general or men in general as a bad thing. Respect should never be something you are pressured to have for someone simply for being something they did nothing to accomplish (such as ageing or being born a man), but something you have for individuals of your own free will based upon appreciating their qualities. It is a painful realization to lose an overall optimism for people in general, good feelings toward strangers you do not know, but it is more realistic to assess based upon personal experiences. Now, seriously disliking being raped and being injured and gagging is natural and I would hate that too.
Knowing things exist, on the other hand, doesn't seem instrinsically harmful. A lot of people regret losing their innocence because they learn about less than inspirational aspects of reality, the loss of that bliss is lamentable as knowledge of such things can be depressing at times. Being unable to get it back (short of mind wiping themselves) people attempt to recreate the bliss of such innocense by observing it in others. This is fine so long as you don't force people to live in it against their will, or against their best interests, which can be applicable in certain circumstances. For example, in warning children about sexual predators, they may become less 'innocent' to you, but this can help protect them against feelings of being objectified and used as an inferior rather than being treated politely. The trauma of knowledge of bad things is less than the trauma of being subjected to them, so this is an example where a controlled loss of innocence benefits someone.
winter wrote:tyciol wrote:I hope this clarifies what I meant by my previous comment, I am sorry you misinterpreted it. I should try to be clearer, unfortunately to make myself clear requires lengthly explanations since people presume the worst from abbreviated expressions.
I didn't even read the recent posts on this thread, but you, tyciol, are anything but abbreviated. Perhaps you are retarded though... hahaha... muhahahaha... Sorry, I just feeling like saying that to you because you pissed Cookie off, and she seems like a kind person.
My statement was not that I was abbreviated, but that I was capable of being abbreviated. I was stating that I was not, so you are correct, but I'm not sure why you would state something obvious which I had already stayed. Perhaps I am retarded, perhaps anyone is. Bwaha. I am thoroughly pissed off. Anyway, pissing off kind people does such, I admit, it is not my intention, but avoiding issues, while okay in the short term, isn't a good long-term thing for people in general. Pick a time when people aren't emotional, but you can't avoid a topic for the idea of an emotional person becoming emotional over reading it, even if you are sad that it will upset trigger points.
Cookie wrote:i wouldn't be so kind if i met someone in real life with an attitude like tyciol's about child abuse who was anywhere near my family.
Do you take emotional distancing as an equivilent of malice? Do you believe discussing things without constantly identifying how appalled you are means that you would do those things? This is a rather paranoid approach. Dangerous predators can easily present themselves as caring, if you only allow people overtly caring around your family, it will not necessarily protect them. On the other hand, people who say things they know would be alarming due to the alien appearance of it, do not fear your reactions, and invite your criticism of them as an individual. This seems less a risk to sneak in and do something you would not notice, and do something you refuse to believe could happen and ignore the victims' claims as troublemaking. I would watch closely those whose actions do not invite your gaze and alarm. For example, those who operate within religions of love, or caring parents, or saintly individuals. I would think CoG would be a good example of how appearances and claims of goodness would be misleading, and how those condemned as those with sinful thinking might be listened to.
