midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 6, 2015 8:03:59 GMT -5
And the first step to healing is to stop the bleeding. In this case, the XH's attempts to manipulate his children and Angel to suit his own needs and desires. It's not about punishment, it's about protecting the most vulnerable people in this situation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 10:24:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 8:12:19 GMT -5
Sorry, my app isn't letting me quote. I don't mean that you're sitting there telling abusers to go ahead and keep abusing or lining up their next victim for them. But I mean in the subtle sense where most people don't realize that their help really isn't help at all. That's the enabling you focus on, but the truth of the matter us you can't help them and make them better. The codependent no more book that was mentioned several times is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. You can't help abusers get better. You can't help alcoholics dry up. You can't make mentally ill people sane again. Yea you may get a bandaid to stick for a little while, but you just end up hurting both of you in the long run. There's nothing Angel can do to help her ex. All she can do is protect her kids from him.I agree with that. The focus should be on her and her children, not on the ex. When looking at visitation the conversation should be on what is best for her children, not on what a jerk her husband was and what he does or does not deserve. It should be about what is best for her children. Posters who are talking about what the ex deserves and especially those who want to punish him are not talking about the children. Are they? And those who are transferring their experiences with an ex-husband are very suspect advice givers. Are they not? Is it about hating a ex-husband or about doing what is best for children even if that involves letting the children have visitation with a parent, the ex you loathe? Pragmatic advice is better then vengeful advice. And it should be okay to tell Angel that some of the advice she is getting might be from people who have problems with an ex and are pushing that agenda. I think that is the case with some posters here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 10:24:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 8:14:42 GMT -5
And the first step to healing is to stop the bleeding. In this case, the XH's attempts to manipulate his children and Angel to suit his own needs and desires. It's not about punishment, it's about protecting the most vulnerable people in this situation. I do not believe that is the agenda of some posters. I believe the agenda of many posters here is punish, not heal.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 10:24:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 8:14:58 GMT -5
Sorry, my app isn't letting me quote. I don't mean that you're sitting there telling abusers to go ahead and keep abusing or lining up their next victim for them. But I mean in the subtle sense where most people don't realize that their help really isn't help at all. That's the enabling you focus on, but the truth of the matter us you can't help them and make them better. The codependent no more book that was mentioned several times is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. You can't help abusers get better. You can't help alcoholics dry up. You can't make mentally ill people sane again. Yea you may get a bandaid to stick for a little while, but you just end up hurting both of you in the long run. There's nothing Angel can do to help her ex. All she can do is protect her kids from him.I agree with that. The focus should be on her and her children, not on the ex. When looking at visitation the conversation should be on what is best for her children, not on what a jerk her husband was and what he does or does not deserve. It should be about what is best for her children. Posters who are talking about what the ex deserves and especially those who want to punish him are not talking about the children. Are they And those who are transferring their experiences with an ex-husband are very suspect advice givers. Are they not? Is it about hating a ex-husband or about doing what is best for children even if that involves letting the children have visitation with a parent, the ex you loathe? Pragmatic advice is better then vengeful advice. And it should be okay to tell Angel that some of the advice she is getting might be from people who have problems with an ex and are pushing that agenda. I think that is the case with some posters here. You know what. Maybe Angel needs to be reminded of what an abusive jerk he was, so she does do what is best for her kids. I need to hear it a lot. It's amazing how selective our memories can become.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,430
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 6, 2015 8:20:11 GMT -5
I am sure this will get deleted like last time I said Angel should be wary of some of the advice here. No one here was married to Angel's ex and those saying they were might be transferring some of the anger they had to Angel's ex. Posts that concentrate on punishing the ex at the expense of Angel or her children are not going to be helpful. There is a crowd here who think more punishment is the answer to all hurt. Sometimes, probably all times, the better answer lies with concentrating on those hurt. Posters have their own history, myself included, that tint some advice and people thinking they know the husband because of their failed marriage might be giving tainted advice. Especially those with an ex they hate and want to think of Angel's ex as the same person. I am not saying all the advice here is bad, just that it should be evaluated by Angel and not taken as inherently good, unbiased advice. I am sure Angel is quite capable to separate good from bad advice here to determine for herself what is best for her, and most importantly, her children. This is not the first time in the history of the world something similar to what Angel is going through has happened. I am pretty sure this has happened easily several million times in the past and much of the advice offered on and off these boards comes from hard learned experience.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,430
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 6, 2015 8:40:41 GMT -5
And the first step to healing is to stop the bleeding. In this case, the XH's attempts to manipulate his children and Angel to suit his own needs and desires. It's not about punishment, it's about protecting the most vulnerable people in this situation. I do not believe that is the agenda of some posters. I believe the agenda of many posters here is punish, not heal. A mother discovers her husband is sexually abusing their children. To help heal her children and ensure it never happens again, the mother files charges with the police and courts to make sure the father is punished for his crimes(s) and never has access to the children again. It is of no concern to the mother what happens to her husband as it pertains to punishment for his crime(s), just that her children will be safe from future harm. If the children wish to have contact with their father in the future, that is up to the kids once they are adults.
|
|
dannylion
Junior Associate
Gravity is a harsh mistress
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:17:52 GMT -5
Posts: 5,211
Location: Miles over the madness horizon and accelerating
|
Post by dannylion on Oct 6, 2015 8:42:51 GMT -5
I agree with that. The focus should be on her and her children, not on the ex. When looking at visitation the conversation should be on what is best for her children, not on what a jerk her husband was and what he does or does not deserve. It should be about what is best for her children. Posters who are talking about what the ex deserves and especially those who want to punish him are not talking about the children. Are they And those who are transferring their experiences with an ex-husband are very suspect advice givers. Are they not? Is it about hating a ex-husband or about doing what is best for children even if that involves letting the children have visitation with a parent, the ex you loathe? Pragmatic advice is better then vengeful advice. And it should be okay to tell Angel that some of the advice she is getting might be from people who have problems with an ex and are pushing that agenda. I think that is the case with some posters here. You know what. Maybe Angel needs to be reminded of what an abusive jerk he was, so she does do what is best for her kids. I need to hear it a lot. It's amazing how selective our memories can become.
And not every noncustodial father is a paragon of misunderstood virtue being persecuted by an evil woman.
As for pushing an agenda, hickle, um, pot meet kettle?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,026
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Oct 6, 2015 8:52:22 GMT -5
When looking at visitation the conversation should be on what is best for her children, not on what a jerk her husband was and what he does or does not deserve. It should be about what is best for her children. Posters who are talking about what the ex deserves and especially those who want to punish him are not talking about the children
Angel's question was specifically about her ex and feeling like a bad person b/c she's not helping him have a relationship with the kids. Posters are pointing out someone who wants to have a relationship with their kids wouldn't be knee deep into alcoholism/drug abuse, skipping town and having tantrums when his ex doesn't respond to his mind games.
What is best for the children right now may not be what is best for them in the future. OF course the kids are going want "daddy" in their lives. They don't understand what's going on, they are children. Angel is an adult and currently the only sane/responsible parent. It is up to her to protect the children even if it goes against what they feel they want.
It could backfire in her face later. So could allowing him to have regular access to the children. You can't make decisions based on a hypothetical future. You have to make decisions based on the now.
At least that is what my therapist told me when I was dealing with my DH having fallen off the wagon. I had to focus on what was best for myself and our daughter based on DH's behavior in the present. I can't control what he will do in the future.
I CAN set boundaries and lay them out in no uncertain terms. DH knows exactly what will happen if he ever relapses again.
And you know what? He AGREES with me. He agrees with me b/c he's taken responsibility for his demons and he's a good father/husband.
I don't see any of that in the ex's rants to Angel. It's all about what a crappy excuse for a person SHE is and how the world has screwed him over. There is also the lovely tidbit about having someone else adopt the kids and drop his last name. Yeah that's prize father material right there.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 6, 2015 9:17:09 GMT -5
speaking of forgiveness of my dad, who abused me. That was more then 40 years after the abuse and ~17 years after his death. It helped me to forgive and it was my right to forgive It is a person's right to forgive or not forgive as they see fit and are able.
For some people, it is harder to forgive when the abuser is still alive and still abusive. Some people need a little time and space to be able to forgive. If the abuser is still alive and abusing, then it's reasonable - not punishment - for a person to get some time and space away from the abuser.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 10:24:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 9:22:13 GMT -5
I cannot support what i posted.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 6, 2015 9:23:24 GMT -5
It is a person's right to forgive or not forgive as they see fit and are able.
For some people, it is harder to forgive when the abuser is still alive and still abusive. Some people need a little time and space to be able to forgive. If the abuser is still alive and abusing, then it's reasonable - not punishment - for a person to get some time and space away from the abuser.
It is arrogant to speak of that forgiveness as "sad and disappointing" which were your exact words. Quote it - full post - so that I know what you're referring to.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 6, 2015 9:27:48 GMT -5
Quote it - full post - so that I know what you're referring to. Look it up if you are interested. Or not if you are not. You're the one that's accusing me of posting something. I don't believe I posted that it was "sad and disappointing" that you forgave someone; I believe I was referring to it being sad and disappointing that the focus of the Duggar thread was on the abuser and how everything impacts him and not on the victims. So if you're claiming I wrote something that I do not believe I wrote, it's on you to post the proof or retract the claim.
There's no good way to search for something that isn't there.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 6, 2015 9:32:00 GMT -5
Quote it - full post - so that I know what you're referring to. Look it up if you are interested. Or not if you are not. Hickle - we do have a policy on the boards of requesting links to the source material when someone is attributing a quote directly to an individual. It's normally for copyright protection purposes but it's also reasonable and fair to ask for the source when you are attributing words to another poster. Because otherwise it's all too easy to claim people said something they never did, which IIRC correctly is something you personally take great exception to. Just saying.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 6, 2015 9:38:34 GMT -5
@hickle - Thanks!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 10:24:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 10:07:00 GMT -5
I cannot find what I said Milee said. I apologize to her. Post #784 by her in the Duggar thread I thought was hurtful and wrong. However, it does not support what I accused Milee of saying. I did not apologize for my dad abusing me as she claimed, I tried to express forgiveness and compassion. Again, I apologize to Milee . eta: I deleted the post.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 6, 2015 10:39:14 GMT -5
No need to apologize. I'm glad you don't think I wrote that it's sad to forgive.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Oct 6, 2015 11:28:36 GMT -5
It's not that posters here want to punish her ex, though there's certainly no love lost from listening to all the truly awful things he's done, but that they have dealt with abusers and manipulators and know the bad side and often the only way to avoid is is to shut them down. You're well known on the board for siding on the side of........let's say enabling the abusers. Also it tends to be on the codependent side. Neither is good at all, but you are free to choose that in your life. Angel wants her and her kids free of abuse, and the only way to do that is to cut the non sober abuser out. And it's not just angels word as the court have him no parenting time. It's not about punishing the ex, it's about keeping the kids free of emotional and maybe physical abuse. He's just collateral damage because he refuses to help himself. You, or any other here, cannot find one post where I said a person hurting someone else should not be punished, not one. I do not think punishment should be the focus of problems, I think helping the one hurt should take priority. I have dealt with sexual abuse problems and issues my whole life. It has hurt me much much more then anything in my life. Over 40 years after being abused, I still am negatively affected. Saying I want to enable abusers is hurtful to me and wrong. I think it much more important to talk about healing. Those posters who think punishment is the most important part of an abusive situation are misguided in my experience and opinion. The posters here who lie about what I believe are -----. They perpetuate hurt with the lies. My experiences led to my beliefs. I have a right to those beliefs. Those beliefs do not enable any bad behavior. I do not disagree with your advice given in your post, because it speaks of what is best for Angel and her children. I think the advice that centers on the husband and says to push him out or punish him with no mention of Angel or her children are suspect and should be seen as such. You and other posters can say whatever ugly thing you want to say about me, apparently it is allowed, but I have never defended abusers. The closest I came to doing so was speaking of forgiveness of my dad, who abused me. That was more then 40 years after the abuse and ~17 years after his death. It helped me to forgive and it was my right to forgive and people who fault me for that are more then wrong. eta: Posters who push hate towards someone who did wrong at the expense of the person wronged do not have the moral high ground they think they have. Hickle...I think you've given actual insight here with your post. You are the living, breathing product of what abuse - mental, physical, sexual....can do to a child. Those kids are the first priority here - not him. I know you see him as being hurt and I do also. If he is bi-polar, much of what he is doing is self-medicating and can't be helped without assistance. However, it's up to him to take care of getting that assistance. Angel's responsibility is to take care of her kids so they don't have to grow up like you did - in a home full of anger, pain and abuse.
Angel has said on more than one occasion that if he gets the help he needs, she would reevaluate things. There are people on this board who I simply don't believe. Angel isn't one of them. I believe what she's saying about this guy and her number one responsibility is to keep the kids safe until he gets help. He isn't the priority. He's waaaaaaaaaay down the line on Angel's list - or at least he should be. She has enough on her plate.
Thank you again for making me think. I truly feel your post was an invaluable contribution here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 10:24:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 12:21:02 GMT -5
You, or any other here, cannot find one post where I said a person hurting someone else should not be punished, not one. I do not think punishment should be the focus of problems, I think helping the one hurt should take priority. I have dealt with sexual abuse problems and issues my whole life. It has hurt me much much more then anything in my life. Over 40 years after being abused, I still am negatively affected. Saying I want to enable abusers is hurtful to me and wrong. I think it much more important to talk about healing. Those posters who think punishment is the most important part of an abusive situation are misguided in my experience and opinion. The posters here who lie about what I believe are -----. They perpetuate hurt with the lies. My experiences led to my beliefs. I have a right to those beliefs. Those beliefs do not enable any bad behavior. I do not disagree with your advice given in your post, because it speaks of what is best for Angel and her children. I think the advice that centers on the husband and says to push him out or punish him with no mention of Angel or her children are suspect and should be seen as such. You and other posters can say whatever ugly thing you want to say about me, apparently it is allowed, but I have never defended abusers. The closest I came to doing so was speaking of forgiveness of my dad, who abused me. That was more then 40 years after the abuse and ~17 years after his death. It helped me to forgive and it was my right to forgive and people who fault me for that are more then wrong. eta: Posters who push hate towards someone who did wrong at the expense of the person wronged do not have the moral high ground they think they have. Hickle...I think you've given actual insight here with your post. You are the living, breathing product of what abuse - mental, physical, sexual....can do to a child. Those kids are the first priority here - not him. I know you see him as being hurt and I do also. If he is bi-polar, much of what he is doing is self-medicating and can't be helped without assistance. However, it's up to him to take care of getting that assistance. Angel's responsibility is to take care of her kids so they don't have to grow up like you did - in a home full of anger, pain and abuse.
Angel has said on more than one occasion that if he gets the help he needs, she would reevaluate things. There are people on this board who I simply don't believe. Angel isn't one of them. I believe what she's saying about this guy and her number one responsibility is to keep the kids safe until he gets help. He isn't the priority. He's waaaaaaaaaay down the line on Angel's list - or at least he should be. She has enough on her plate.
Thank you again for making me think. I truly feel your post was an invaluable contribution here.
I see him as irrelevant, other then what the children need from him. I think many posters who want to punish him see him as more relevant then the welfare of the children. I think are transferring ugly thoughts about their ex and want to punish.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 10:24:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 12:22:31 GMT -5
No need to apologize. I'm glad you don't think I wrote that it's sad to forgive.That is not my view. I apologized because I could not find the support for my accusation and did not think it fair to leave it unsubstantiated.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Oct 6, 2015 12:33:33 GMT -5
Hickle...I think you've given actual insight here with your post. You are the living, breathing product of what abuse - mental, physical, sexual....can do to a child. Those kids are the first priority here - not him. I know you see him as being hurt and I do also. If he is bi-polar, much of what he is doing is self-medicating and can't be helped without assistance. However, it's up to him to take care of getting that assistance. Angel's responsibility is to take care of her kids so they don't have to grow up like you did - in a home full of anger, pain and abuse.
Angel has said on more than one occasion that if he gets the help he needs, she would reevaluate things. There are people on this board who I simply don't believe. Angel isn't one of them. I believe what she's saying about this guy and her number one responsibility is to keep the kids safe until he gets help. He isn't the priority. He's waaaaaaaaaay down the line on Angel's list - or at least he should be. She has enough on her plate.
Thank you again for making me think. I truly feel your post was an invaluable contribution here.
I see him as irrelevant, other then what the children need from him. I think many posters who want to punish him see him as more relevant then the welfare of the children. I think are transferring ugly thoughts about their ex and want to punish. What the children need from him is to be sober and stable.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 10:24:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 12:38:05 GMT -5
I see him as irrelevant, other then what the children need from him. I think many posters who want to punish him see him as more relevant then the welfare of the children. I think are transferring ugly thoughts about their ex and want to punish. What the children need from him is to be sober and stable. I have never disagreed with that or anything like that. eta; the question in the opening post was whether the children should see the ex at supervised visits at Chuckee Cheese. My position is that that decision should be based on what is best for the children, not on the father or how he gets along with the mother. And I cautioned Angel that some posters here might not have her or her children's best interests at heart when they post about the father.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 10:24:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 12:54:59 GMT -5
What the children need from him is to be sober and stable. I have never disagreed with that or anything like that. eta; the question in the opening post was whether the children should see the ex at supervised visits at Chuckee Cheese. My position is that that decision should be based on what is best for the children, not on the father or how he gets along with the mother. And I cautioned Angel that some posters here might not have her or her children's best interests at heart when they post about the father. But, it DOES depend on the father. And you obviously haven't been around here a long time because the issues with her ex go back probably 5 years or more here. We're all pretty familiar with the situation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 10:24:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 13:04:08 GMT -5
Apparently we are all man hating harpies who would advocate leaving fathers in the dust regardless of who they are....
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 6, 2015 13:14:58 GMT -5
No need to apologize. I'm glad you don't think I wrote that it's sad to forgive.That is not my view. I apologized because I could not find the support for my accusation and did not think it fair to leave it unsubstantiated. That sounds very passive aggressive.
You withdrew your assertion because you couldn't find an actual example of me writing what you accused me of writing, but then you post that you do think I wrote it.
Why is it OK for you to make guesses about the actions and feelings of others, yet you call out others when they do the same?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 6, 2015 13:14:49 GMT -5
Apparently we are all man hating harpies who would advocate leaving fathers in the dust regardless of who they are.... do you think it is possible to want to hurt an ex even at the expense of your children? Or is that just a fiction? Do you think it is possible that some posters hate alcoholic ex husbands and are just a bit biased? Everyone has biases. Bias alone doesn't necessarily discount the quality of advice given. Many drug and alcohol counselors have their own history of substance abuse, which helps them empathize with their patients. Does their "bias" about drug use mean their advice is crap? And I don't know if I'm reading a different thread, but I am not seeing the "ex hurting" posts to which you keep referring. Restricting an addict's/abuser's access to his children is not about punishing the addict, it is about protecting the children. If the thread was filled with people discussing ways to slash his tires or burn his apartment down or put him in the EE freezer, with very little discussion of what Angel and her children need, that would be a different story. But I haven't seen much (if any) of that. I think your own biases may be coloring the way you're reading responses here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 10:24:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 13:18:14 GMT -5
Well, I for one do not hate either of my ex husbands. I am not vindictive at all! First husband left me after 15 years together for a girl in China he met on business trips 18 years his junior. I was a SAHM with a 2 year old, so it was not an easy transition. Tonight I'm babysitting their 3 year old and 10 month old so they can go out to celebrate her getting her citizenship. Second husband fell apart. Drugs, alcohol, mental illness, physical and emotional abuse. It's been a couple years of getting himself back together and a long stretch with no visitation, then supervised, then limited unsupervised, but he recently started getting our son for overnights every other weekend and it's going well...but I watch him and DS like a hawk.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 10:24:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 13:24:53 GMT -5
That is not my view. I apologized because I could not find the support for my accusation and did not think it fair to leave it unsubstantiated. That sounds very passive aggressive.
You withdrew your assertion because you couldn't find an actual example of me writing what you accused me of writing, but then you post that you do think I wrote it.
Why is it OK for you to make guesses about the actions and feelings of others, yet you call out others when they do the same?
In the post I linked you specifically said I apologized for and defended perpetrators (child molesters). You also specifically said I apologized for my father molesting me and justified his actions. I did neither. It might not be perfectly clear that you meant I was wrong in forgiving, but you are certainly saying something close to that.
|
|
dannylion
Junior Associate
Gravity is a harsh mistress
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:17:52 GMT -5
Posts: 5,211
Location: Miles over the madness horizon and accelerating
|
Post by dannylion on Oct 6, 2015 13:29:17 GMT -5
Aaaaaand he's managed to make another thread all about him.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Oct 6, 2015 13:31:29 GMT -5
Aaaaaand he's managed to make another thread all about him. I was just thinking he'd managed to completely derail the thread. Good thing Angel got what she needed from us first.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 6, 2015 13:48:49 GMT -5
That sounds very passive aggressive.
You withdrew your assertion because you couldn't find an actual example of me writing what you accused me of writing, but then you post that you do think I wrote it.
Why is it OK for you to make guesses about the actions and feelings of others, yet you call out others when they do the same?
In the post I linked you specifically said I apologized for and defended perpetrators (child molesters). You also specifically said I apologized for my father molesting me and justified his actions. I did neither. It might not be perfectly clear that you meant I was wrong in forgiving, but you are certainly saying something close to that. You are once again misrepresenting what I wrote. I remember what you're referring to and my post was in response to your question. You asked me how I disagreed with what you were posting. I replied that I disagreed with your focus on the perpetrator, not on how to help the victims. Here's what was actually posted, since you keep misrepresenting it.: May 26, 2015 at 10:53pm Chocolate Lover, midjd and 9 more like this.
May 26, 2015 at 10:09pm milee said:
You can like people and not agree with them or their actions.
May 26, 2015 at 10:20pm hickle said:
How can you disagree with me on this issue. My points were that if abuse is happening it should stop, the abused should get help and the abuser should get treatment. The second point I have been arguing is that people who do not know the specific facts of this case should not be making up facts and presenting them as truth. The third point I have tried to make is that there are going to be unintended consequences if we make punishment overly harsh just for the sake of harshness.
Have I made any other points or do you disagree with one of the above?
May 26, 2015 at 10:53pm milee said:
I disagree with you on this issue because you are so focused on Josh that you appear to consider the protection and care of the girls as a secondary issue.
The focus here should be on what can or should be done to protect the girls in both Duggar households from future abuse and get any that were abused help. Protecting the girls may or may not impact Josh and what he can do. Protecting the girls may or may not impact the Duggar parents and what they can do. You seem so focused on how any of this impacts Josh that you're unable to put the focus on where IMO it should be - the girls.
In cases like this, and frankly to some extent with all cases of molestation within a family, there is a certain amount of guesswork that has to happen to protect the victims. Nobody is ever going to know exactly what happened except the people that were there and there are many, many reasons that the people that were there are not willing or able to be fully truthful or complete with their recitation. That doesn't mean we take every statement at face value, shrug and say "OK, we really can't tell with 100% certainty what exactly happened. Nothing to see here. Move along." There are times when we have to use observation, logic, knowledge of similar cases and studies to guess what might be happening. Again - to protect the victims who may not have a voice or feel they have any other options or a way to tell. And yes, that means that sometimes people get it wrong. Sometimes horribly wrong with awful consequences. But the idea is whenever possible - protect and get help for the victims and prevent future victims. None of that appears to have been done here from what little we know.
And whenever people try to talk about it, the focus gets turned from the victims into a discussion of Josh and what is right and fair for him. And that's wrong. We should be more worried about how we offer help to the girls and make sure that no other girls in either household are at risk - neither of which is being done.
I think it's sad and wrong that you are so worried and focused on Josh's rights and being fair to Josh that it overshadows your concern for the girls. Even your disclosure of your own abuse was just as much about your father, his history and why you feel compassion for him as it was about you. You are so focused on apologizing for him and justifying his actions that it takes as much as - if nor more of - a role as examining or explaining what the abuse meant for you.
So to summarize - I disagree with your focus on the perpetrators and the preoccupation with defending them and apologizing for them. I'm not on the opposite of that in that I don't think it makes sense to bring out the pitchforks... I just want to stop the perpetrators from being the focus of our talk and actions. I want us to focus on and talk about what could and should be done to protect and heal victims.
|
|