(August 26, 2015 at 12:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not actually assuming, Cath.....but it doesn't matter. I was simply hoping to take that weight off your chest in order to give you more room to move. Do you object to the contents of my explanation, do you object to our repeated observations of correlation? Do you object to the notion, specifically, that sexual repression - regardless of reason or intent or ideological foundation, has a non-random effect?
I appreciate it but there is no weight on my chest.
And yes, you were assuming that the only reason I am defending Josh's parents is because they are Christian. This assumption is incorrect. Unless you proclaim yourself a psychic who just read my mind you cannot claim that this is fact rather than your assumption.
Unless you are a perpetrator's psychologist, I don't think it's right to point fingers at his parent's upbringing for his acts of molestation. This seems extremely basic to me, and I am surprised by the number of people here arguing that it is perfectly appropriate to do so. But I have nothing else to say, so I guess we will just agree to disagree.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
