LordODiscipline
Posts: 995
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nephilim
I disagree. If you are literally being chased by a man, say 10 steps away who is armed, and you are unarmed, putting a door between you and them would be your best option. If the man continued to bang at the door, there is no way the kid could be in danger, therefore you are doing the right thing by keeping the guy focused on you. Then, if he pushed the panic button and cops arrive within 2 minutes while the assailant was fixated on him, that all seems reasonable. This scenario falls within what was stated. If you would like to dispute the motives of the artist and your perception of him trying to save only himself at all cost, I'm afraid you would have to gather more actual evidence. Obviously, judging by the outcome, he did the right thing. Would you prefer the story to read, man is hacked to death while trying to retrieve child who was not the subject of the attack and was in the next room? Would that save the man's honor? So, again, there is no evidence from those articles to suggest that he did anything inappropriate or left an unarmed child alone with an axe murderer. It may be the case, and if so, that is a bad thing, but again, just because something can be the case is no reason to malign the guy.
Also, if you think a unarmed "grown man" should not run when a man attacks with a knife and ax, then you have been watching way too many action movies.
I am in agreement with this rationale.
For further consideration, read the book "Blink" - it talks about the Amadou Dialo case in NYC several years back, where 4 officers arrived to find a suspicious man standing on a stoop, approached him shouting for him to freeze and show ID and as he reached into his pocket, they opened fire
The myriad questions that could have been asked about the incident were not in the press because they (of necessity) look for the publishable answers to anything that might be considered - and, often that has a deadline of the next morning... so, there are no in-depth investigations to start - and, 'people are people'
In this instance, we do not know the actual physicality of the actions except that given in a two dimensional expose which is attempting to give answers in the face of a deadline
"What is a man?"
A man is a person who can live with all the actions of his life, good and bad, without self recrimination and with an understanding that they have made mistakes - and, sought amends
If we pre-suppose to judge this man beyond that judgment which is coming to him from himself, his family and his deity, then we are making a mistake of equal proportion(although perhaps not magnitude).
The basic premise of this questioning is that "we are without sin" and would not make this mistake.
It presupposes a different result should the OP'r and those he would wish to make inclusive into this personal supposition of moral superiority be the one being chased
I rather doubt that premise is justified and/or proper.
Although I realize that there is some inherent need in Gor to define one's personal 'manhood'; if anyone wants personal validation of their manhood based on such a report and the happening that surrounds it under the assumption that they would have reacted *not behaved, but reacted* differently, this is definitively not the situation to do it.
"Manhood", as it is attempted to be defined in this short group of postings, is not determined by happenstance, but upon an entire life.
Sometimes that life is defined in one short happening - but, we cannot tell that from what is cited here.
~J
_____________________________
"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."
William Thomas
|
RE: On cowering behind little girls to escape consequen... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread