She didn't say? You didn't ask? It was just you telling her to go to the police, and that we the entire conversation?

Anyway, victim-blaming is a bad thing, I'll agree. A pernicious problem. unwarranted feelings of guilt are also a problem. But not doing the right thing because other people will feel bad is ethically wrong.

@Cerberus How would I know how she felt about things before she talked to me? I can only know how she felt about things when she talked to me.

By the way, that situation you describe sounds in all respects much worse than the girl in the question.

Maybe. Maybe not.

We have no idea what the real situation with that girl is.

Given her boyfriend's reaction, she is probably not going to be forthcoming with him either.

@KitFox Fine, at the beginning of the talk, then.

@Cerberus She wanted to know if I thought that was weird.

Ah.

Weird that it had happened?

Weird to have group sex with your family.

Or weird that she didn't want to report it?

Ah.

She seriously had no idea?

Why would she?

Or was it more like an invitation to talk about it?

@Cerberus just like this victim has no idea that she should even feel victimized.

Well, doesn't everybody know? Or was she still a child when you talked to her?

They told her people did stuff like that, but they didn't talk about it, like menstruating.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 That girl knows very well it was, let's say, "improper", taboo, but she didn't think it was bad.

It was their way of showing each other they loved each other and of welcoming their new daddy into the family.

Ahh that's devious.

That's what predators do.

So you told her it was not normal?

I did. I said I thought she should tell someone.

And then how did she react: did she immediately let you know she felt violated/wronged/harmed?

Even though her mom had said that their other dad had killed himself because he didn't feel loved enough.

How old was she when you talked to her?

We were 14.

@Cerberus taboo is totally different from criminal and objectively wrong.

Maybe 15 by then.

Ohh that young. I had no idea.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Exactly. It's just different from the 14-y-o conversation entirely.

She didn't feel violated/wronged/harmed in that way. She was really confused.

Really, really confused.

@Cerberus so... you're agreeing then, that the woman in the story doesn't understand her own circumstances?

How did she phrase her confusion?

It's hard to explain.

Of course it was very good that you told her she should go to the police or the school.

"But that's how we love each other..."

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 No: I'm saying she understand now that it was not normal, unlike Kit's friend at the time.

But she sensed something was wrong, obviously, or she wouldn't have asked.

Yeah.

@Cerberus but "not normal" is very different from "criminal, unethical"

Yes.

Anyway, if it was wrong when she was 14, it is still wrong now.

Twenty years later makes no difference.

If only because she kind of felt it was wrong then.

And, I mean, her parents? That's nasty.

She cracked up because of it.

In what way?

Despite all the evidence, they denied it. They said she was making it all up.

She was in a psychiatric hospital for several years working through it.

Now that's harm.

That family sounds fucked up in more than one way btw.

Yeah. Then some asshole orderly had an affair with her.

Wow.

At what age?

And of course, then you have to start wondering if she really was making it all up.

How about her siblings?

Do you think she was making it up?

@Cerberus Oh. Probably 20 or so.

@Cerberus No.

Not anymore, I don't.

@Cerberus I don't know what happened to them, except they were all put in foster care.

She told me that one of her breakthroughs came when she ran into her aunt at the supermarket one day, and her aunt told her that she believed her. She had always thought there was something weird going on.

Ah.

She had been wondering herself if maybe she was just delusional.

So you don't know whether she talked about this with her sisters at the time?

It was brothers.

Ah.

@KitFox The aunt?

She didn't get to visit with them much after they went to foster care, so I don't know.

@Cerberus No, my friend.

Oh.

So she reported it, and they were all taken away?

Yeah.

And the parents went to prison?

I would assume so, but I'm not positive.

I wonder about the brothers.

Whether they discussed it.

By the way, I do hope you don't think I would be condoning this.

Because I'm obviously not.

Well. Really? If she hadn't said anything and went on thinking it was just fine?

I'm not even condoning what the aunt did in the question.

@KitFox What?

If my friend hadn't said anything to me and had gone on thinking everything was just fine and that was what families did.

Then from what you said, it would be OK. She shouldn't bother anyone by reporting it 20 years later.

As long as she thought it was fine.

But the harm is clear in your story, and it was clearly still going on, and it was her own parents, for God's sake.

But the harm was done by her reporting it, wasn't it?

No.

There was different, minor harm done by the reporting, but it was worth it.

So what was the harm in it when she thought it was normal behavior?

The harm was that she had to be committed, right?

Well, after she reported it.

And do you think she would have been fine and mentally sane if she hadn't reported it?

If hadn't talked about it, and I hadn't told her it was wrong, and twenty years later she told her boyfriend it was fine and she did it all willingly because that's how they showed each other their love, then he shouldn't make her report it, right?

Because that would just do more harm than good.

My hypothesis would be that such a situation is impossible.

@Cerberus why is it impossible?

Well, the letter you shared suggests otherwise.

No, that's different.

It actually happened.

And it wasn't parents. And it was (presumably) just once.

There was nothing that suggested it was just once.

That's how I read it.

And it doesn't say who the relative is.

Well, it can't be a parent.

Why not?

Thirty somethings are old enough to have 11 year old children.

Okay, if it was a parent, that changes things. But then the parent would have to be awfully young, and one normally doesn't call a parent a "relative".

@Cerberus one does if one is hiding things.

What's there to hide?

It's obviously anonymous.

also 30-something isn't that young to have an 11yo child.

There are no details in it to identify her.

Maybe the girl didn't want her boyfriend to know.

frankly it doesn't matter what kind of relative it is.

@KitFox Hmm. Okay, the girl may have lied. That changes things. But you know that's not the situation I was talking about.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I think it does. A parent is different.

@Cerberus all adults have a duty of not acting in ways that harm children.

So?

so the lawn guy's duty to not fuck with an 11 yo is the same duty as her dad's duty to not fuck her.

And an aunt might have been primary caregiver for all we know, acting in the same role as parent.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 So? Nobody denies that.

@Cerberus so I don't see what difference it makes who the relative was.

@KitFox Perhaps, but I'm assuming she wasn't.

your entire point is predicated on the victim's perception, or lack thereof, of harm.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Because I'm not talking about ethics or the law. Both are crystal clear.

so if kit's friend had never asked kit about it, or if kit had simply said "whoa, that's weird, are you okay with that?" and her friend had said "I guess so? beats watching Full House", then would it have been okay for her step-dad to fuck her?

Do you honestly think having sex with your live-in father is not more harmful than with a stranger?

@Cerberus Is the harm from incest/step-incest real harm, or just another taboo?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 "Okay"? How many times to I have to repeat myself? Okay, one more time:

@Cerberus So... it wouldn't be okay for him to fuck her. BUT if she felt fine about it, then it would be bad for her to tell someone, in case feelings get hurt.

Yes. And again we're back to the "don't molest children, but if you do, it's OK as long as 10 years later talking about it harms the victim more than the actual molesting did."

@KitFox ... or the perp, or the perp's family

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 That I do not know, but the taboo itself makes it harmful enough that you shouldn't!

@Cerberus But talking about it later might only make it worse, so don't bother?

because in kit's example, it does seem like talking about the problem precipitated things getting worse.

@KitFox How can you seriously think that's what I'm saying? I'm not saying what the aunt/whatever did was OK! I have told you this how many times? You keep going back to the perspective of the perpetrator, "is it OK for me to touch children?": no! But I'm interested in the perspective of the victim: how does she feel and what does she want to do?

@Cerberus Which makes the touching OK as long as the child wanted it. Because if the touching was not OK, it doesn't matter if the child wanted it.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 No, I said may. Telling people is often the good thing to do for yourself and others.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I don't believe that. I said may, because it seemed to be the case in the question. It is most probably not the case with Kit's friend. Do you seriously think Kit's 14yo friend was in the exact same position as the 20yo girl in the question now?

So again "you should never touch children, but if you do touch children, when the child is grown up, if she doesn't think it is a problem, making a huge deal out of it later may cause more harm than it does good."

@Cerberus So kit's friend was right to tell people, even though she wasn't sure if she felt harmed or not, but the woman in the story shouldn't tell anyone, because her aunt/family might get upset.

@KitFox Again, you are confusing perpetrator and victim. It is never OK for the perpetrator. What you are saying 100 % contradicts my "you should never touch children", and also my "I'm not saying what the aunt/whatever did was OK!", and also "is it OK for me to touch children?: no".

@Cerberus how do you know that she wasn't in the exact same situation? maybe the woman in the story would have felt confused, if she had been a little older and knew more about how wrong this was, or if she had spoken to someone at the time. Maybe she only DIDN'T feel wronged because she never told someone.

What I'm saying is it changed things for the victim.

@Cerberus No, you are confusing the two, not me. You are making it OK to commit a crime as long as the victim doesn't feel like it is a crime.

A crime is a crime. just because the victim doesn't feel victimized doesn't change things.

hah, jinx I guess

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Have you even read the question? The girl doesn't want to tell. If she wants to, then she should. This is about pressuring the girl: that's what I think may not be right.

She should be pressured.

@Cerberus "pressuring" the girl. Or maybe just trying to convince her that she's wrong.

@Cerberus So you don't believe at all that there could be any other victims to consider here.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I don't believe that.

Oh, Mr. Shiny, I thought of a delightful way to explain the differences between my two sons' personalities.

@KitFox It is never OK to touch children. It is never OK to touch children. It is never OK to touch children. It is never OK to touch children. It is never OK to touch children.

@Cerberus Then if it is never okay to touch children, why is it okay to let a child-toucher go unpunished?

^ That.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Can't you understand the vast difference between those two propositions?

@KitFox My explanation of the differences: my daughter is a cat, my son is a puppy.

@Cerberus There is no difference between those two. If you let it go unpunished, you condone the crime.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 It is not always a good idea to punish every crime, not because the crime was OK, but for other reasons. Do you deny this basic truth?

You are complicit in the act.

@Cerberus How is letting someone off the hook not telling them that what they did was okay?

@KitFox I totally and utterly disagree.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 He doesn't have children; he doesn't understand.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 It's totally different.

@Cerberus Refusal to stop it is the same thing as allowing to act.

I disagree with that too.

@Cerberus So you are saying that some crimes should be unpunished. How is that different from just allowing the crime in the first place? It is identical.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Mine: The eldest will defeat General Grievous because he is a bad guy and must be stopped. The youngest will crush General Grievous to set an example for his enemies.

Wow. Should I just wade right in to all this>?

Yes!

@MετάEd go nuts

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Allowing, again, is different from both of those things.

Heh heh heh.

Can I have the Cliff's notes?

Cerb is dumb puppy.

@KitFox Oh, so this is still Girl Genius.

@Cerberus "You're not allowed to rob the bank. But if you DO rob the bank, I'm going to let you go." What is the meaningful distinction between that and "You can rob the bank."

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Do you condone what Bush did in Iraq? Did you punish him?

@Cerberus Oh, how I wish I were in a position to punish him.

@Cerberus That's not the same thing. It's not within my power to punish the President.

Don't you think he deserves punishment?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 You could go to his house and stalk him.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Not even "I'm going to let you go." It's "I won't say anything or even acknowledge that you did it."

So this is an extreme example of where condoning ≠ not punishing.

@Cerberus No, I couldn't, because he has security. There is virtually no way that I could successfully punish George bush in a meaningful way.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I think a fairer analogy is if someone robs you of all your money and you decide not to have them arrested.

but I'm not getting involved

Hi @Matt!

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 The very least you could do is start a couple of Internet campaigns.

hi!

@Cerberus No, it's not at all the same. I would punish him in a heartbeat if I could do that.

Hi.

@Cerberus There are already plenty of those.

So you do nothing?

> There is virtually no way that I could successfully punish George bush in a meaningful way.

> All that is necessary for the forces of evil to take root in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Then why aren't you doing what you can?

@Cerberus Enlighten me. What can I do.

Too busy fighting child molesters.

@KitFox Yes, but that still doesn't mean doing nothing ≠ condoning.

@Cerberus It may not mean the same thing, but it accomplishes the same purpose.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 As I said, start a couple of Internet campaigns. The more negative attention, the better.

@KitFox It depends on the situation.

People will listen to the Interwebs!

@Cerberus That's a totally useless waste of my time. I'm not at all skilled in internet campaigning.

@Cerberus No, it doesn't.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Still, you could try. It might have some small effect, if you spend enough time and money on it. But you choose to do nothing.

@Cerberus Can we restrict the conversation of condoning vs ignoring to the subset of cases where the actor in question has a meaningful ability to affect an outcome?

For instance, by reporting a crime?

Anyway, I think this proves that condoning is not always the same as not acting.

Not acting is the same as allowing.

You can do nothing because you condone the crime, or for other reasons.

Which makes you complicit.

@Cerberus I have tried. Actually when George Bush was invited to my university to speak, I and some other students got righteously angry about it.

@KitFox That's still not condoning.

Good for you!

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 But I'm sure you could have done more. There always is.

We tried to petition to prevent him from leaving the country due to his felony record.

Haha.

@Cerberus Doesn't matter how much we did. We still did. Which is more than nothing.

Doing nothing is the same outcome as allowing.

You can't say we have done nothing, because we have.

In the case of the girl and the aunt, the reason would not be because you condone what she did, but because the girl doesn't want to and you respect her wishes. Or other reasons.

You may say that is a wrong reason, but it's still not condoning.

That's doing nothing. That's allowing the aunt to commit crimes against children.

Even if that were so, it's not condoning.

Same effect.

So you say.

She is still free. How is it different?

What's different is whether or not you are of the opinion that what the aunt did was morally OK.

You can do nothing and disapprove at the same time.

For other reasons.

So it's still morally wrong, but not a crime then?

No, it can be both.

So if it's a crime, it doesn't matter because the victim doesn't think so?

Even if it is a crime, you, as the boyfriend, may still feel that it is up to the girl to decide whether or not she wants to report it. Surely you don't think the boyfriend, if he decides to let the girl do as she wants, is saying "what the aunt did was OK"?

I think he's too busy struggling with the girlfriend's reaction to it to worry about that.

Perhaps.

Perhaps? He wrote to Prudence FFS.

He must be struggling with it.

At any rate, I don't think it's OK to do what the aunt did, and yet I'm not sure what I would do if I were the boyfriend.

I would dump the girlfriend.

Sure, he's clearly struggling with it.

And run.

But I don't like your accusation that I would think it's OK if you clearly know that I don't.

Can't you see how that makes me feel?

Your words don't jibe.

You say one thing and then another.

Inaction ≠ approval.

You can accuse me of being too passive, but not of approving of what the aunt did.

I can accuse you of lip service.

Even after the nuanced argument I have laid out?

It sucks. Doesn't hold water.

You shake your fist and justify in the same breath.

The aunt shouldn't have done that, but the girl shouldn't say anything.

No, no.

I'm not telling the girl to do anything.

If she wants to report her, then she should do so.

I'm talking about the boyfriend and the stigma.

The aunt shouldn't have done that, but the girl shouldn't say anything because she doesn't want to and because she thinks it was fine and she's just upsetting people by telling them she had sex with a relative.

He is trying to decide whether he should pressure her or not, and whether he should report the aunt or not.

I'm not saying she should do anything or not.

Right. You're saying she should do nothing, because it is her choice.

Even though a crime was committed.

She shouldn't have to. That'd not the same as she shouldn't.

Yeah. I put that.

She's the victim, and yet people are pressuring her.

And I disagree. A crime was committed. It should be reported.

And I respect your opinion.

@Cerberus And after she reports it, people will say she's made a big fuss over nothing and they will continue to make her a victim.

Possibly?

Or maybe not.

Maybe she will feel better.

Or worse.

Or both.

But my central point was that putting pressure on victims and stigmatising them may cause harm in itself, even if that way you can do other good things. So you should carefully consider the situation, and not always by default do so.

She doesn't need to be made to feel dirty, but she does need to understand that what her aunt did was wrong.

Well, okay, but is that even possible?

Yes.

I would feel dirty.

You haven't had it happen to you.

No.

So you don't really know.

Can we move on to the moral dilemma of whether to push somebody in front of a train in order to save 5 people?

Yes, especially if the one person is fat.

Done.

what if the train is driven by hitler?

Next issue.

@MattЭллен Especially then.

I frankly think it is immoral to create such a hypothetical problem in order to torture people on what they would do. Make them stay up at night thinking about how they must have answered wrong.

The end justifies the means...

That's dangerous.

@KitFox or if that person is george bush.

@MattЭллен then you are guaranteed that none of the five people you're saving is Hitler.

@MattЭллен I think calling him names is appropriate but lying about it is not.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I don't know. I don't want to get shot.

@KitFox is it right or wrong to create a global, digital super structure just so it's easier to look at pictures of naked adults?

@KitFox hm, but what if the 5 people you're saving are current politicians instead of retired ones. hmm...

@MattЭллен what are you, al gore?

@RegDwighт true

@MattЭллен Right, but complicated by the burden of spam.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Still. Fat people.

@MattЭллен is creating ever wrong? Isn't it using that is the problem?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 si

What if by calling hitler names, it makes him feel bad about himself, he gets a realization that he should change his life and go in to becoming a green grocer instead of politics, WWII never hapens and the coldwar never happens, and billions of people die from old age ... before the rapture.

@MattЭллен Is that a French si or a Spanish one?

@MattЭллен does your answer depend on what the meaning of "si" is?

@RegDwighт how do you create without using?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 si

@MattЭллен and what about the puppies? kittens are overrated.

@MattЭллен I create an online dating site. I don't use it.

Same way you grow without toking.

@Mitch but Hitler did get called names. In fact he got called Hitler, by everybody, every living moment of his life. It didn't make a difference.

@MattЭллен How do you create with using?

@RegDwighт Hey, are there still Germans who use that last name?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 @KitFox you don't don't test your product? for shame

Me? I said nothing about me.

But hypothetically ? That;s the moral difference. If you hypothetically call him namesm the world, hypothetically, would be totally different.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I guess so, and I bet Wikipedia has an exhaustive list complete with addresses.

@RegDwighт using(var reader = new StreamReader(stream)){...}

@MattЭллен No, we have a QA team for that. Still, testing != using. I can test a gun without killing people.

@Mitch Those billions die from the lack of computer technology and nuclear medicine.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 but you are using the gun to test it

@MattЭллен see, you need to invent some rubbish language first.

But hypothetically ? That's the moral difference. If you hypothetically call him names, the world, hypothetically, would be totally different.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Do you know anyone called Adolf?

@RegDwighт not first! I invented lots of rubbish before that

@MattЭллен but he is not creating the gun while testing it.

@KitFox But they're 'appy!

@KitFox y u confuse.

@Cerberus There's a kid named Adolf Hitler in Pennsylvania, I think.

Haha, seriously?

Are his parents Nazis?

And his sister Aryan something.

Ahh.

Wait till the Mossad gets wind of it.

Yeah. Neonazis.

So yes.

I don't know anyone named Adolf under 70.

There was a story about the bakery refusing to make this kid's birthday cake.

What is neo about them?

There's a girls name 'Nazi'.

Yeah, James Cameron made an entire movie about them.

Does anyone know a normal person under 70 named Adolf?

Sorry.

nbcnews.com/id/28269290/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/…

So many students called Adolf? Wow.

That's what I meant to paste.

@Cerberus ha ha...yeah...in South America! Adolpho is common.

@KitFox I saw your cut and paste mistake. Quite graphic.

> "If we're so racist, then why would I have them come into my home?" he asked.

Then again, Jessco White.

Any of you ever see "Jessco Goes to Hollywood"?

??

No. Is it a comedy?

Or "Jessco White, the Tap Dancing Outlaw"?

No. Two documentaries about the "last mountain dancer."

The first one was hilariously depressing.

@KitFox Okay, those people are just crazy.

And they misspelled Himmler: Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell

Then he got cult famous from it, so he was invited to play a bit part on Roseanne.

@Mitch Really? Cool.

Some of my best friends are tap dancing outlaws (but to clarify, outlaws for reasons other than their tapdancing in case you take it the wrong way)

Well, Tom Arnold was upset that Jessco had a swastika tattooed on his hand.

@Cerberus There's no accounting for stupidity.

Would you decorate a cake with a swastika for a client?

"It;s from the Finnish flag."

So according to wikipedia the surname "Hitler" is a variant of a more common surname which is still in use.

@Mitch Yeah I just don't get it. If you're no Nazi, then why those names?

Jessco is explaining it to the documentarian about how Tom pulled him aside and explained to him about the evil shit the Nazis did, and how they killed babies and shit, and Jessco had no idea. Tom paid to have a new tattoo to cover the old one.

'Honszlynn'? kinda goofball.

@KitFox people are idiots.

@Cerberus Too ignorant to realize how serious it is.

Like the shop in India?

@MattЭллен Depends on what you mean by "using"

You've all seen it.

@Cerberus OK...that seems blameless. like having 'Fart cola' drinks in Thailand.

3 year-old Adolf Hitler can't get his name on a birthday cake

WalMart helped him out though.

Yeah cuz he's 3 years old. They're not tall enough to see over the counter to ask.

"Can you spell that?" "No. I free."

I just made myself "Aww" when I wrote that.

@KitFox See? You can't trust them.

Shit. It's 4:37! I have to go home now. See you later!

@Mitch Well, the shop's owner just thought it would be nice, because Hitler was a famous German general, so it would be cool.

^^ Hitler as a baby. Look at those eeeeeeeevil eyes!

He does look stupid already.