Sport Horse Spotlight

Total Hope-11-18-09-3662

Real Estate Spotlight

UMS_01

Sale Spotlight

COTH_without Subscribe
  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You�re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it�details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums� policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it�s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users� profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses � Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it�s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who�s selling it, it doesn�t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions � Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services � Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products � While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements � Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be �bumped� excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues � Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators� discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you�d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user�s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

George Morris on the SS list

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by prairiewind2 View Post

    Never did I say it was better in the 60s and 70s. Did not say that. I have merely argued, and will continue to argue, that it was never "accepted". (Your word.) People dealt with teacher/child rape more quietly. But they never accepted it. It was not accepted societally. That does not mean that individuals did not accept it. But "some" is not all or even most.
    I do think a touch of a matter of semantics but I do stand by my word. More quietly is not an excuse. Just like "not voting for a Nazi" doesn't let the germans of that time period off the hook. They stood by and watched it happen. Sure some may have sheltered Jews, but they still let it happen.

    Originally posted by prairiewind2 View Post
    As far as music and videos and little girl models - imo, that is another discussion. I've always seen that as a knee-jerk reaction to women's lib, an effort to put us back in our proper places, to infantilize us once again. (After all, most of the people in charge of those industries were/are men.) But that is my own opinion and I have no problem with people not agreeing with me.
    It normalizes predators. That a society would do that in a knee jerk response to women's lib is something we can agree on (after all, the rich and powerful men in charge have a lot to fear from us women ;-) ) but the net effect is normalizing the sexualization of children (mainly female). Do I believe that the men who put out that crap do it because they are predators? Not necessarily in the same sense that I view the perpetrators as predators, but they are predatory because they see the sexualization of young girls as a means to an end, and either don't believe or disregard the harm done.

    Again, my main reason for belaboring the point is not to be right (good lord, I would have let it go pages ago), but because I've been so vastly misunderstood as standing with the predators because I'm talking about the way things were and to help people understand that silence is not acceptable.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by 4LeafCloverFarm View Post

      This is also how I see many things back in the 60's and 70's. Sad, but true. "Looking the other way" was an art form at that time - fingers in ears, singing "La La La La"... but again, just my experience. Other's experiences from that period may vary.
      Tiptoeing in..

      I've been finding many of the arguments on the various sides of the 'acceptance' debate in the last few pages somewhat convincing (weird, I know. How can that be..?). But ultimately I think I fall in line with 4LeafCloverFarm 's conclusion.

      My own parents were horrified to hear of the abuse of my brother, not accepting of it AT ALL. But other than calling the moving truck and getting out of Dodge (while carefully causing as few ripples in the community as possible) they took no other action.

      I take solace in the fact that at least my brother must not have felt disbelieved, on top of the unbearable onus left pressing down on his 7 year old shoulders to carry on as if nothing had happened. The one solid thing he could lean on was that they had removed him from a harmful situation.

      To not believe a victim would also have been a muddled but conscious and simplified choice made in order to protect the status and stability of families. Look at how many parents of the survivors of child molesting priests sided with the Catholic Church?

      All of this stuff was considered evil and abhorrent, very much so. But the cleansing disinfectant of light and air hadn't fully arrived yet so for your average family, any attempts to address such a thing would have had to have been weighed against the potential for the very real backlash unleashed by society's (communities really) firmly entrenched support structures surrounding the accused.

      Not believing, not protecting, or not taking action did not mean that the violation of minors was accepted, just that it frequently (and sadly) was not addressed.
      Last edited by ohmyheck; Aug. 14, 2019, 07:02 PM.
      One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.
      William Shakespeare

      Comment


      • Originally posted by OneGrayPony View Post
        We know for a fact that parents knew with Nassar
        Actually, I don't think that's true. I listened to the whole Believed podcast, and there was only one set of parents profiled who were told a tiny bit of what he had done to their daughter and didn't report to law enforcement. Even they took their daughter to a therapist who felt that what she said wasn't reportable. They were close, longtime friends of Nassar, pressured her to recant and she did. I don't think they "knew."

        I am sure there were other parents who were told something who didn't report or take any action, but I don't think we "know for a fact" that any of those parents knew and understood that their daughters were being abused. Indeed, there were several that helped their daughters report to the police who were blown off as "not understanding" his medical procedure. It was quite a while before the right detective got the right report and started putting pieces together, and then the case truly broke on him because they happened to serve a search warrant before the garbage truck came that day.

        Nassar was extremely slick and came off as the girls' protector again and again.
        If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

        Comment


        • Originally posted by aredhel View Post
          One thing the anti-SafeSport crowd is overlooking is that SafeSport (unlike the criminal justice system) doesn’t just protect children. It also protects the reputation of trainers who may have been falsely accused, because the investigation (unlike criminal proceedings) is not carried out in the public eye. Forget criminal conviction; there are a LOT of people out there who honestly believe that if a person has been arrested he or she must be guilty of something. Being arrested on charges of child sexual abuse will permanently destroy a person’s reputation even if the charge is later proved to be completely unfounded. But with SafeSport, if the investigators conclude there’s insufficient evidence to justify a sanction, the only ones who know a charge was levied are the investigative team, the accuser(s), and the trainer. The trainer’s reputation in the world at large has not been ruined.

          Since fear of ruining an innocent person’s reputation is one of the many reasons people are reluctant to report suspected abuse, this aspect of SafeSport ought to be more widely appreciated.

          This sport (and most others) NEEDS SafeSport. It may need a few tweaks, but it fills a necessary role.
          Exactly. I have no idea why anyone thinks it would be "better" for an accused trainer to have the investigation start with an arrest, or why they think dealing with the criminal justice system is going to be easier, better, more convenient, or fairer than Safe Sport.

          But I'm thinking they're the same people who said that the accusations against Jimmy Williams were unfair since he wasn't alive to answer them, and who are now curiously ungrateful that this mistake has not been repeated.
          If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

          Comment


          • As a survivor, the "silence equals acceptance" topic is a tough one for me. Do I think people really heard or saw abuse and decided that it was acceptable to them, and did nothing? No, I know that most people would not think it's OK to molest or rape a child. However, the psychological effect that people's silence and inaction had was to make me feel insignificant. I felt and sometimes still feel like my safety and emotional well being was the last thing on anyone's priority list. The image of our perfect little family was the important thing.

            It took me 4 years to gather the courage to tell my mother what was happening to me. She expressed disbelief. Maybe I misinterpreted what really happened. Her brother was married, he wouldn't do those things with his niece. I was excused from family events that included the sick f*ck, but the fact that he had molested and raped me wasn't acknowledged until almost a decade later. One night when my mother was drinking, she admitted that he had molested her when they were kids. They had just moved, and her brother was the golden child to her parents. She had no friends, no trusted adults, so she stuffed that down and pretended it never happened. We've had a handful of discussions about it in maybe 30 years, and we're close now. I think we mostly avoid the topic because there's so much pain for both of us. I've forgiven her for what she did to me by not accepting what I told her, because I know what she went through, and I know she stuffed that down so deep for so long, that speaking up and wrecking her illusion of the perfect family was just too much at that point for her. Her denial of her own abuse got her through that, and she reacted the same way to mine. I get it.

            The thing is, even knowing what I do now. Even accepting the psychological turmoil my mother went through..... and even though I have forgiven and let it go... I was still wronged. I still felt insignificant, marginalized, like the adults that were supposed to keep me safe KNEW what had happened, and yes, had accepted that this was OK with them. If it wasn't OK with them, then why didn't they f*cking DO something?

            So we can say that just because people are silent, doesn't mean they accept the behavior, but the effect on the people who are being or have been abused is to make them feel like they're not worth speaking up for, that whatever people are getting from that trainer, doctor, clergy member, whatever image that person has is more important than the physical and psychological well being of a child. Whether that's the person's actual intent or not. that's the message the inaction and silence sends.
            Last edited by Jenerationx; Aug. 14, 2019, 09:55 PM. Reason: found a typo

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ohmyheck View Post

              Tiptoeing in..

              I've been finding the arguments on the various sides of the 'acceptance' debate in the last few pages somewhat convincing (weird, I know. How can that be..?). But ultimately I think I fall in line with 4LeafCloverFarm 's conclusion.
              . . .
              Funny, after reading all the posts on this little sidetrack (accepting, different back then, etc.), I was starting to believe that perhaps my view was quite biased on this topic, due to my personal family dynamic (ie, my mom not believing me regarding the incident with our creepy neighbor). So thanks for your post. It makes perfect sense to me. And I'm sorry about your brother.

              I think, if anything, this whole thread has promoted critical thinking in many readers. Which is a good thing. I think many Americans (young and old) have become lazy when it comes to certain topics/situations. The art of debating, critical thinking, curiosity, questioning things, etc. is being lost. Not sure why that is.

              One thing I know for sure, is that the pros who immediately jumped on the I stand with GM bandwagon, will find the longer they wait, the more painful it is to jump off. But better to jump off regardless of how much it hurts, than to just stay on for the ride while it goes over the cliff...
              ~~ How do you catch a loose horse? Make a noise like a carrot! - British Cavalry joke ~~

              Comment


              • wow,the editorial response is so ignorant. She thinks GM was banned without being told, never mind having the opportunity to present his side. OR she totally knows the truth and is lying to spread falsehoods i applaud Kate Vosbury

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jenerationx View Post
                  ..

                  So we can say that just because people are silent, doesn't mean they accept the behavior, but the effect on the people who are or have been abused is to make them feel like they're not worth speaking up for, that whatever people are getting from that trainer, doctor, clergy member, whatever image that person has is more important that the physical and psychological well being of a child. Whether that's the person's actual intent or not. that's the message the inaction and silence sends.
                  And that right there is the tragedy in all of this. Whether it be 50 years ago or last week with the dethroning of GHM.

                  Like one excellent post stated earlier, we need a surge of influential voices within the horse industry to start making some serious pro SafeSport noise, to show unequivocally that they stand with the survivors.
                  One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.
                  William Shakespeare

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by cloudyandcallie View Post
                    Ok I obviously lived in a different world,Savannah and Atlanta and Staunton Va and Berkeley in the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s cause sex with underage children was reported and prosecuted. (And credit cards? Hell in the 60s in college in Va Rich's in Atlanta sent me my unsolicited card followed by American Express. My parents never were notified. )
                    .
                    But wasn't the age of consent in GA 14 until 1995? And isn't it currently 16? So I guess the question is "what is an underage child?" The date the state says is the age of consent or the Age 18? And if the age of consent was 14 in 1995 and an adult engaged in sexual activities with a child of consenting age, does that make it right? Can SS go after an adult who had sex with a consenting 14 YO back in 1994? Also, isn't the SS legal age 18? How can SS have a different age of consent than a state? Does that violate state's rights or does a federally mandated law overrule state's rights? Is this in federal jurisdiction to mandate an age of consent or is that the right of the state? The ages of consent are in conflict it seems

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by atl_hunter View Post

                      But wasn't the age of consent in GA 14 until 1995? And isn't it currently 16? So I guess the question is "what is an underage child?" The date the state says is the age of consent or the Age 18? And if the age of consent was 14 in 1995 and an adult engaged in sexual activities with a child of consenting age, does that make it right? Can SS go after an adult who had sex with a consenting 14 YO back in 1994? Also, isn't the SS legal age 18? How can SS have a different age of consent than a state? Does that violate state's rights or does a federally mandated law overrule state's rights? Is this in federal jurisdiction to mandate an age of consent or is that the right of the state? The ages of consent are in conflict it seems
                      That’s all well and good but you are missing the piece of positional authority. So if it was a random person of the legal age at the time, yeah side eye. But students? Working students? That’s what gets conveniently left out of these statements.

                      Comment


                      • Credit to Dictionary.com for the definition below
                        accept: verb (used with object)


                        1. to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a present; to accept a proposal.
                        2. to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.
                        3. to respond or answer affirmatively to: to accept an invitation.
                        4. to undertake the responsibility, duties, honors, etc., of: to accept the office of president.
                        5. to receive or admit formally, as to a college or club.
                        6. to accommodate or reconcile oneself to: to accept the situation.
                        7. to regard as true or sound; believe: to accept a claim; to accept Catholicism.
                        8. to regard as normal, suitable, or usual.
                        9. to receive as to meaning; understand.
                        10. Commerce. to acknowledge, by signature, as calling for payment, and thus to agree to pay, as a draft.
                        11. (in a deliberative body) to receive as an adequate performance of the duty with which an officer or a committee has been charged; receive for further action:The report of the committee was accepted.
                        12. to receive or contain (something attached, inserted, etc.):This socket won't accept a three-pronged plug.
                        13. to receive (a transplanted organ or tissue) without adverse reaction.

                        There has been a lot of interesting and useful discussion here regarding "accept" versus "acceptable". To me, it seems like this is more of a debate between definitions #6 and #8 from the list. Both can be true independently of one another. They can also both be true at the same time. And one being true can increase the likelihood of the other becoming true.

                        What also makes definitions #6 and #8 more likely to be true? The absence of objection/correction.

                        For example: Potty training a puppy. (Because we're all animal lovers here and I think this scenario will be relatable to most of us)
                        New puppy pees on area rug. I absolutely do not want this behavior, I don't like this behavior, I'm not cool with it. It's gross and I don't want to live with it. I definitely feel a certain way about it. As far as my action? I take the area rug out of the house and replace it.

                        Puppy pees on new area rug. I continue to have those strong feelings that I don't like it, I'm not cool with it, it's gross and I don't want to live with it. Toss the new area rug in the trash.

                        Puppy pees on the third rug and the fourth. I continue to be grossed out and unhappy. Never take any action other than throwing away area rugs.

                        What's going to be the result? We all know - the puppy is going to continue to pee on the fresh new area rugs I provide to it.

                        There was no discernible objection from me. There was no correction. By failing to turn my feelings into corrective action, I have accommodated the undesirable behavior and allowed it to become the norm.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

                          That’s all well and good but you are missing the piece of positional authority. So if it was a random person of the legal age at the time, yeah side eye. But students? Working students? That’s what gets conveniently left out of these statements.
                          And what also gets left out of these statements is that the victim DID NOT OR WAS UNABLE to consent, hence the report to SafeSport. People in consensual relationships who don’t feel they were abused tend not to report their former partners as abusers. And in the very (very) rare case of false allegations to SS, an investigation would not turn up sufficient evidence and the claim would be closed. The age of consent is irrelevant if one of the parties DID NOT CONSENT.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by HoolieB View Post
                            Frequent lurker, infrequent poster.

                            I admit that early on I thought due process was completely disregarded by SS and that suspensions and permanent ineligibility were assigned upon accusations being made. I questioned SS and its flagrant abuse of power. When GM was affected, I thought it went too far. So I got myself to the forum here and looked forward to reading like-minded posts. Heh.

                            At first I was confused and put off by the more, er, passionate posts defending SS and the process. I mean, GM was the Grand Poobah of all things hunter/jumper. (For reference, I do fancy-prancing. Badly.) How could H/J folks not be up in arms about this injustice, this ancient and spurious charge of hedonistic behavior? So I kept reading here. And a funny thing happened: I got educated on SS and the process. I was reminded that abuse of power in the form of sexual abuse and the damage inflicted on victims has no expiration date. No longer can I put my head in the sand and think SS sanctions are a result of so-called witch hunts. In short, I am deeply embarrassed at my first reaction to the GM sanctions.

                            Thank you to everyone here who took the time to present facts. It made a difference.
                            It’s amazingly admirable that you’d admit that here, I’ll count that in the win column for my perception of humanity

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ohmyheck View Post
                              Like one excellent post stated earlier, we need a surge of influential voices within the horse industry to start making some serious pro SafeSport noise, to show unequivocally that they stand with the survivors.
                              I think those influential voices would help with the general public, but I don't discount ANY voice. Every single person that has posted here saying that this is not ok, that it doesn't matter if it was 50 years ago, that predators don't just have some isolated incident and then stop counts.

                              I'm not friends on fb or elsewhere with any BNTs, but if I were, and I saw some "ISWG" statement on their wall, I would promptly let them know how I feel about someone I used to admire sweeping the pain GM has caused under the rug because he's some name in the sport. I admire everyone here who has whittled their friend list accordingly.

                              Originally posted by bluemoonjumper
                              There was no discernible objection from me. There was no correction. By failing to turn my feelings into corrective action, I have accommodated the undesirable behavior and allowed it to become the norm.
                              Excellent example! People sweeping this under the rug, or in your example just replacing the rug, even if they are disgusted on the inside, doesn't send any message to the person pissing on our sport. I won't even get into the ones who are publicly standing with George. I wish someone would publish and maintain a list so that those that are disgusted by it can choose not to support them.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Palm Beach View Post

                                In most court systems, you get something like 30 calendar days to file an appeal. 5 days seems incredibly short to me.
                                You get five days to say you want to appeal. You don't have to present your entire case within 5 days.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by ohmyheck View Post

                                  Tiptoeing in..

                                  I've been finding many of the arguments on the various sides of the 'acceptance' debate in the last few pages somewhat convincing (weird, I know. How can that be..?). But ultimately I think I fall in line with 4LeafCloverFarm 's conclusion.

                                  My own parents were horrified to hear of the abuse of my brother, not accepting of it AT ALL. But other than calling the moving truck and getting out of Dodge (while carefully causing as few ripples in the community as possible) they took no other action.

                                  I take solace in the fact that at least my brother must not have felt disbelieved, on top of the unbearable onus left pressing down on his 7 year old shoulders to carry on as if nothing had happened. The one solid thing he could lean on was that they had removed him from a harmful situation.

                                  To not believe a victim would also have been a muddled but conscious and simplified choice made in order to protect the status and stability of families. Look at how many parents of the survivors of child molesting priests sided with the Catholic Church?

                                  All of this stuff was considered evil and abhorrent, very much so. But the cleansing disinfectant of light and air hadn't fully arrived yet so for your average family, any attempts to address such a thing would have had to have been weighed against the potential for the very real backlash unleashed by society's (communities really) firmly entrenched support structures surrounding the accused.

                                  Not believing, not protecting, or not taking action did not mean that the violation of minors was accepted, just that it frequently (and sadly) was not addressed.
                                  THIS.....never acceptable but now we have better ways to deal with it.

                                  Comment


                                  • This is a good read for anyone interested in the legal aspects. It's about the procedures Harvard adopted to adjudicate sexual harassment/sexual assault claims-- and the ensuing protest by the law school faculty. Some of the points raised by the Harvard law professors may sound quite familiar.

                                    https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...qbM/story.html

                                    From the article:

                                    As teachers responsible for educating our students about due process of law, the substantive law governing discrimination and violence, appropriate administrative decision-making, and the rule of law generally, we find the new sexual harassment policy inconsistent with many of the most basic principles we teach. We also find the process by which this policy was decided and imposed on all parts of the university inconsistent with the finest traditions of Harvard University, of faculty governance, and of academic freedom.

                                    Among our many concerns are the following:

                                    --The absence of any adequate opportunity to discover the facts charged and to confront witnesses and present a defense at an adversary hearing.

                                    -- The lodging of the functions of investigation, prosecution, fact-finding, and appellate review in one office, and the fact that that office is itself a Title IX compliance office rather than an entity that could be considered structurally impartial.

                                    --The failure to ensure adequate representation for the accused, particularly for students unable to afford representation.

                                    The university’s sexual harassment policy departs dramatically from these legal principles, jettisoning balance and fairness in the rush to appease certain federal administrative officials.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by mountainbells View Post
                                      Virginia HM Wrote:

                                      "If he has managed to avoid HIV for so long, he should give his blood to science so they can find out why."

                                      I've wondered that for a long time. The odds against getting HIV with such exposure are so low.
                                      Science already knows why.... if he's actually been exposed and isn't infected with HIV, then he's an HIV elite controller. Meaning he can suppress HIV viral loads without antiretroviral therapies.

                                      And yes, science is already harvesting antibodies from elite controllers to work on vaccines for other HIV patients. There's like a 0.3% chance of being an elite controller or 1 in 300, it's not too special.....

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by BlueMoonJumper View Post
                                        Credit to Dictionary.com for the definition below
                                        accept: verb (used with object)
                                        1. to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a present; to accept a proposal.
                                        2. to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.
                                        3. to respond or answer affirmatively to: to accept an invitation.
                                        4. to undertake the responsibility, duties, honors, etc., of: to accept the office of president.
                                        5. to receive or admit formally, as to a college or club.
                                        6. to accommodate or reconcile oneself to: to accept the situation.
                                        7. to regard as true or sound; believe: to accept a claim; to accept Catholicism.
                                        8. to regard as normal, suitable, or usual.
                                        9. to receive as to meaning; understand.
                                        10. Commerce. to acknowledge, by signature, as calling for payment, and thus to agree to pay, as a draft.
                                        11. (in a deliberative body) to receive as an adequate performance of the duty with which an officer or a committee has been charged; receive for further action:The report of the committee was accepted.
                                        12. to receive or contain (something attached, inserted, etc.):This socket won't accept a three-pronged plug.
                                        13. to receive (a transplanted organ or tissue) without adverse reaction.

                                        There has been a lot of interesting and useful discussion here regarding "accept" versus "acceptable". To me, it seems like this is more of a debate between definitions #6 and #8 from the list. Both can be true independently of one another. They can also both be true at the same time. And one being true can increase the likelihood of the other becoming true.

                                        What also makes definitions #6 and #8 more likely to be true? The absence of objection/correction.

                                        For example: Potty training a puppy. (Because we're all animal lovers here and I think this scenario will be relatable to most of us)
                                        New puppy pees on area rug. I absolutely do not want this behavior, I don't like this behavior, I'm not cool with it. It's gross and I don't want to live with it. I definitely feel a certain way about it. As far as my action? I take the area rug out of the house and replace it.

                                        Puppy pees on new area rug. I continue to have those strong feelings that I don't like it, I'm not cool with it, it's gross and I don't want to live with it. Toss the new area rug in the trash.

                                        Puppy pees on the third rug and the fourth. I continue to be grossed out and unhappy. Never take any action other than throwing away area rugs.

                                        What's going to be the result? We all know - the puppy is going to continue to pee on the fresh new area rugs I provide to it.

                                        There was no discernible objection from me. There was no correction. By failing to turn my feelings into corrective action, I have accommodated the undesirable behavior and allowed it to become the norm.
                                        Bingo.

                                        We also say things like “he accepted his medicine”. Did it mean he liked it? No. Did it mean it was good? Not from his perspective. What it meant was that he felt there was no other option. He accepted it. Turned a blind eye. “Took it”

                                        We say it of horses too - some horses are trained to accept pain, to exhibit a learned helplessness when things happen. Does it mean that they condone it? No, but they’ve stopped fighting, if ever they fought.

                                        Regarding the poster who said the Nassar parents didn’t know, I beg to differ. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc...amp/ncna841091
                                        Last edited by OneGrayPony; Aug. 15, 2019, 12:39 AM. Reason: mobile was being super weird

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by OneGrayPony View Post

                                          Regarding the poster who said the Nassar parents didn’t know, I beg to differ. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc...amp/ncna841091
                                          OneGrayPony, there's nothing in there that contradicts what I said. Your implication is that parents plural knew and didn't care. The only parent set that I'm aware of who failed to contact law enforcement did contact a therapist, a mandated reporter, and he advised that there was nothing to report. They also weren't gymnastics parents - ie they weren't after athletic glory. It was the more classic example - they'd been family friends forever, the story was confusing, they reacted badly, the family was in the middle of a health crisis, the daughter shut down. They failed their daughter. But I don't think they *knew*. And that's just one set of parents out of hundreds.
                                          If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X