Victim Conversation (off-topic moved)

[Tom_Wescott]

I hope your not being homophobic Tom

Scared of a little ol' fag? Perish the thought! As for Ally, when did she 'pass judgement'? She just disagreed with the idea that these women had no control over their destinies. I completely agree, particularly in the case of THESE women who all came from better circumstances.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;88761]

Seriously Ally, you do this all the time. You take the lives of these women and compare them to your own life, I’ve lost count on podcast the amount of times you start…well me and my brother, when I was six..

Uh wrong. I have mentioned my brother ONCE when discussing waving a knife at someone. I have never attempted to compare my life with theirs. So don't exaggerate and don't make up crap that isn't supported by fact.

As you point out these women were no angels but to make assumption about them as mothers or wives or as prostitutes and compare them to your own experiences is simply bad Historical analogy.

I have not made a single assumption about them as wives or mothers. I have listed facts: that they abandanoned their children, that they had to be paid to take care of their sick children and their marriages broke up because of their alcohol use. That is making statement of historical facts, not assumptions.

Quite honestly your opinions of them are irrelevant but it is simply not the case that they bought their rendezvous with destiny upon themselves.

And once again you completely misrepresent the argument as being one that is limited to the causation of their death. No one has said that the way they lived their lives meant they deserved to die. WE are not talking about their deaths. WE are talking about their lives. I realize for people like you, who see them as nothing more than victims and only worthy of note because of how they died, this is a hard distinction for you to make, but we are not talking about their manner of death. Once again, for hopefully that last time and with the fervent hope that repetition can penetrate even the thickest and most obtuse skulls: We. Are. NOT. Talking. About. Their. Deaths.

Got it now? Can you try to keep up?

If you wish to sit in some form of divine judgment that is up to you. I have no interest, however I do believe that there is a responsibility to put there lives in context and for them each to be treated as individuals instead of being lumped into one miss-leading catch phrase…or constantly portrayed as ciphers.

You are the one who is lumping together in the perpetual victim category. YOu are the one who refuses to see them as individuals. So this is a really feeble argument you are trying to make here, considering it is what you are doing and saying shouldn't be done.

[Ally]

how many times? You can have empathy for the situation, without any moral comment at all on the person or their behaviours! Stop trying to make it emotional and ethical...it isn't.

You didn't actually answer the question. SO you could have empathy for a child molester? Yes or no?

And no, you can't have empathy with a situation, it has to be with a person.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
Whats this the slagging off thread?,
What is the motive?
I dare say it started of with good intentions, but i hate all this bickering, its so off putting especially for perspective newcomers, that have just joined, or considering becoming members.
Regards Richard.

[Tom_Wescott]

That's the $39,000 question, Richard. It might be offputting to newcomers but it's the main reason a lot of us old hands stick around.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Richard,

I think pointing out that certain posters are morons can only help guide newcomers. However, if this thread is so off-putting, I heartily endorse your decision not to participate in it.

[John Bennett]

If I was a newcomer to these boards and saw this thread (and several others recently), I think I'd give 'Ripperology' a wide berth.

[Ally]

Good, sort the wheat from the chaff. Timid people never make for interesting debate.

[richardnunweek]

Hi John,
That is a echo of my thoughts, this is not a difference of a opinion thread, it is a free for all, that should be continued in chat.
Regards Richard.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, to anyone thinking like that, I have only one thing to say...

www.zodiackiller.com.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John Bennett]

It's just turning into mud-slinging. The boards are getting more clogged with never-ending circular arguments and insults.

[Ally]

Actually it should be continued wherever the participants wish to continue it and if you want to be hall monitor be prepared to get trampled. We are all adults here, of our own volition, choosing to participate and we don't need someone wagging their finger at us and telling us how we ought to be behaving.

If you don't like it, don't post here. But you aren't exactly adding anything constructive or changing the tone by picking another fight.

[Jeff Leahy]

I have not made a single assumption about them as wives or mothers. I have listed facts: that they abandanoned their children, that they had to be paid to take care of their sick children and their marriages broke up because of their alcohol use. That is making statement of historical facts, not assumptions.

Yes this is my whole piont. They abandoned their children? who is they? there marrages broke up because of alcohol abuse?

Who is this they? News flash..they were all different.

And once again you completely misrepresent the argument as being one that is limited to the causation of their death. No one has said that the way they lived their lives meant they deserved to die. WE are not talking about their deaths. WE are talking about their lives. I realize for people like you, who see them as nothing more than victims and only worthy of note because of how they died, this is a hard distinction for you to make, but we are not talking about their manner of death. Once again, for hopefully that last time and with the fervent hope that repetition can penetrate even the thickest and most obtuse skulls: We. Are. NOT. Talking. About. Their. Deaths.

Got it now? Can you try to keep up?

Again Ally you are running your own agenda without listening to what people are saying..you assume that because another poster has said one thing I am saying the same..I am not. I certainly don't only see these women as victims..I seek to view them as they deserve, as individuals. So perhaps you should..."try and keep up"

You are the one who is lumping together in the perpetual victim category. YOu are the one who refuses to see them as individuals. So this is a really feeble argument you are trying to make here, considering it is what you are doing and saying shouldn't be done.

No Ally I see these women as people, warts and all. The difference between you and I is that I seek to view them in their Historical context not because of something that happened in my childhood.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

It's just turning into mud-slinging. The boards are getting more clogged with never-ending circular arguments and insults.

Have you applied to Stephen to be Admin? If this particular issue is that important to you, then perhaps that's what you should do.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

'I have not made a single assumption about them as wives or mothers. I have listed facts: that they abandanoned their children, that they had to be paid to take care of their sick children and their marriages broke up because of their alcohol use. That is making statement of historical facts, not assumptions. '

But surely, Ally, that was the norm?
Being murdered for it was not.
So are you not judging the usual by the unusual?
I remember one case I found last year from the LVP where a French maid in a respectable household was impregnated by the wealthy owner, and rather than suffer the shame of childbirth outside of marriage she took that freshly born child and cleaved it neatly in two from head to groin then shoved it in the drain.
So is murder a better option than social stigma?
I get the impression this is what you are trying to say.