Victim Conversation (off-topic moved)

[John Bennett]

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

Tom, I wouldn't be so bold.

[Tom_Wescott]

John, what do you mean?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John Bennett]

John, what do you mean?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I was merely (but rather forthrightly for me) stating an opinion about the aggro, as many have done over time. However, I would not presume to push myself upon Stephen's long-standing setup.

I guess I just felt that I wished folk would know when to lay off each other. Agree to disagree, etc, but perhaps that's being 'timid' as Ally mentioned earlier.

I'm not good with conflict, so it's surprising I've lasted this long!

JB

[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. '

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.

As always it takes the Captain to see Ally's non defenseable position.

Ally, you seek to condem these women by your own standards and your own twenty first century view point. They lived in a different world. They all got to that world in different circumstance. Yet you seek to pool them together as one.

These women were tough in the way that the name 'queen of Mean' means nothing. Emma Smith's struggle for life was a physical acomplishment that we can only all imagine. They deserve respect. because you and I can not begin to imagine what the lives of these women was actually like..

I thank you again Captain for your usual common sense and historical perspective on such matters.

Yours Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

If you feel your ass getting sore, it's not hemmorhoids, it's Pirate Jack's nose. Simply stand up from your bar stool and brush his face away. It's not a permanent cure, but it should get you through another Fine Spanish Brandy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Tom, many words, honour, dignity, respect, courage, bon chance, empathy, sympathy, love and peace in the community... things that that the crass community you have created will never enjoy.
Look to your master.

[Ally]

'
But surely, Ally, that was the norm?
Being murdered for it was not.
So are you not judging the usual by the unusual?

No. I am judging them the same as I would judge any woman who did that. It is you all who are attempting to exonerate their actions simply because they were murdered. You are viewing them by the non-norm and excusing them for the responsibility of their actions because of the manner of their death.

And glad to see some new blood. I've gotten tired of arguing with Paul via Jeff.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, many words, honour, dignity, respect, courage, bon chance, empathy, sympathy, love and peace in the community... things that that the crass community you have created will never enjoy.
Look to your master.

You should consider adding sincerity to that list. I feel you and Pirate lack in this and you often take stances for the sake of drama and controversy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Tom, many words, honour, dignity, respect, courage, bon chance, empathy, sympathy, love and peace in the community... things that that the crass community you have created will never enjoy.
Look to your master.

What we seek is the truth.

What Tom seeks is a ruck for its own sake..

What Ally seeks is to rubbish the names of women who did nothing more than be in he wrong place and the wrong time..

The captain, as always, seeks to let these women rest in peace..

For that, he has my respect

Whats the matter Ally the kitchen getting to hot?

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

No. I am judging them the same as I would judge any woman who did that. It is you all who are attempting to exonerate their actions simply because they were murdered. You are viewing them by the non-norm and excusing them for the responsibility of their actions because of the manner of their death.

And glad to see some new blood. I've gotten tired of arguing with Paul via Jeff.

No you are not...you are judging them by any women who did that in 2009 not any woman that did that in 1888..

You simply do not understand the role of the historian..

Pirate

PS I just phoned Paul for permission to post, but frackly he has better things to discuss

[Ally]

What Ally seeks is to rubbish the names of women who did nothing more than be in he wrong place and the wrong time..

Rubbish the names of women who did nothing more than be in the wrong place at the wrong time? What a crock. I am rubbishing the names of women who were thieves, adulterers, child abandoners who had to be paid to take care of their sick children, and bottom feeding alcoholics. The fact that they died in the wrong place at the wrong time doesn't at all ameliorate or change the circumstances of their lives.

[Supe]

Sometimes assertions are made in the midst of debates that need to be questionesd, especially by A.P. who has a tendency to speak seemingly ex cathedra. He asserts that mothers abandoning husbands and children because of an addiction to alcohol was the norm, but was it and where? Was it the norm for all of society, just for London, just for the East End, just within common lodging houses, or for just a smaller segment of those clustering nightly in the houses? Without data to back up the claim it is simply meaningless bombast.

Don.

[babybird67]

right, i'm back...

this will probably be a long posting, as i am a bit of a reflector and a bit of a serial chatterer, so fasten your seatbelts or skip this post now!

Firstly, to make it clear, i'm not here harbouring any vitriol, acrimony or, indeed, antimony, for anybody (except maybe Klosowski, who deserves a taste of his own medicine!). I accept happily that the world is made up of many different people, who have many different views...as i said earlier, messageboards would be pretty boring if we all agreed with eachother all the time. So, there are no axes grinding or agendas being followed. These are just my own thoughts, subject to change as always, as i take on board new information and other people's opinions.

John...i hate conflict too, but don't be put off posting. Your views are as valid as anyone else's.

Ally, you've asked some good questions and made me think a lot. I'm going to try to express my current position as well as i can in response.

You ask, can i have empathy for a child molester?

Firstly, this hypothetical child molester was not always a child molester. One is not born a child molester. One is born a baby, innocent, free from sin.

Something happens to this baby to change it into a child molester. Usually, nasty things. Usually, i believe, children who are abused as kids, go on to adopt those behaviours themselves. Presumably you could empathise with a child being abused? But your empathy would stop once they had made the decision to become an abuser themselves?

So, already, to ask, can you empathise with a child molester, is a complex question and not as cut and dried as it would seem; as it depends on which part of the molester's personal history you are looking at.

I think we part company on the definition of empathy when it appears you see within it an ethical component that i dont see in it: i'm using the concept of empathy much more dispassionately and unemotionally. I'm not saying, "Ahhh poor child molester, but he was molested himself so we can excuse/exonerate his crimes." I'll remind you again, i have not used either those terms or concepts - excuses or exoneration - in my postings, because they are not part of the concept of empathy i am employing in my mind.

Now we can debate about genetics vs environment for a very long time. I fully accept there are some human beings who perhaps have the genetic make-up of a child molester or a murderer, and no matter what environment they grew up in, it would be difficult to forsee them having become anything other than murderers or child molesters. The public needs protection from this sort of person, and this is where i think life should mean life.

However, i also believe there are some criminals, drug addicts, thieves etc, who, with the right kind of environment, can unlearn their negative behaviours, can be taught how to make better choices if you like. I also believe that if we as a society can understand better what particular environments and contexts give rise to people making bad choices (bad for them personally and bad for society as a whole), we can adopt measures in an attempt to change things both for the person and the rest of us for the better.

I believe if we can exercise empathy in seeking to understand the context of a person's choices, we can help to reduce crime, and in reducing crime, we naturally reduce the victims of crime. In this sense, there is a selfish aspect of empathy...it is for my good, your good, everyone's good, if we reduce victims of crime, isn't it?

Only by seeking to understand the contexts which give rise to negative behaviours, can we seek to understand the behaviours themselves and how to address them. Thus, if we put ourselves into a situation theoretically, to experience vicariously what someone else has experienced actually, to attempt the understanding necessary of someone else's mind and motives, this can bring positive benefits, without it being necessary to either excuse or condone bad behaviour or choices.

Empathy is not an all or nothing term. One can have empathy for a person at one stage of their life, but not at another. It's not a magic wand either. Some behaviours remain inexplicable, no matter how hard you try to understand what gave cause to them. Child molesting is one; murdering is another. My empathy cannot reach into the mind that is capable of doing either of these things...i cannot understand...at all...no matter what someone's background...the choice to do such harm to another person.

So, in answer to your question, yes and no; yes, i can empathise with someone who later becomes a child molester, whilst he or she has not yet taken that last step to molest. Once over the line, and molesting someone else, the person has gone from victim to criminal, and is one of those cases that - try as i might my whole lifetime - i doubt i will ever attain anything nearing a comprehension of. This doesnt mean though that the empathy exercised whilst this person is still occupying the status of victim, cannot help us to comprehend what influences a person to do the unthinkable, and perhaps prevent some people taking that step over that horrible line.

Choices are context and situation-specific. We don't choose in a vacuum. The more we can understand what type of environment engenders bad choices, the more hope we can have that these can be influenced and changed for the better.

This is quite clearly not something to be used to exonerate or excuse bad behaviour: it is a tool with which we can attempt to educate people about the importance of choosing well, doing the right thing, and taking responsibility for their actions. Social structure has a big part to play...in the LVP, nobody cared about the unfortunates, so how could the unfortunates learn to care about anybody else, let alone themselves?

They were wrong: wrong to steal, wrong to abandon their children, wrong to cheat. Can i empathise with them? Yes, i can attain some kind of understanding of how these behaviours came about in the context of their lives at that time. Do i exonerate or excuse them, because i can empathise with them? No, i don't. They still did wrong. They still made bad choices. They still should have behaved better.

But my empathy teaches me not to be so quick to judge them too harshly. They didnt molest children. They didnt murder anybody. Those avenues are where my empathy cannot possibly reach. The worst thing they did was abandon their children, and that's a difficult one....being a mother...i could never understand a mother leaving her children; i would rather die first. Yet in their own times, there was a much harder attitude to life and to children, perhaps because of infant mortality. Parents were harsher. Life was harsher.
So, even though i cannot personally understand the abandoning of children, when i contextualise their choices, it is easier to try to come to a comprehension of what they did, without ever approving of it ethically, or justifying the choices.

Empathy contextualises choices, in an aid to promote understanding of how those choices came about. It's important to do so, in my opinion, and to try to empathise where we can, and to learn from doing so. Although, i concede, i am unable to do it in all cases.

I hope this answers your questions Ally. Sorry for the essay! One of my many faults i'm afraid...never use one word where twenty will do.

[Ally]

You say that empathy has nothing to do with ethics and condoning yet you then say that you cannot empathize with a child molester who has crossed that line. Why not?

If the empathy that you are talking about relates not at all to condoning or ethics, then the empathy should extend to past the crime, since all that life experience and what not leading up to it remains the same.

SO it seems, you too are also choosing to apply an ethical and moral cast to where and when you choose to empathize.

[babybird67]

not at all Ally

i cannot empathise because the thought processes that must be necessary for choosing those actions are beyond my comprehension.

It's nothing to do with ethics.