Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TravelinMan
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravelinMan
Axe to grind, huh. Have you ever been assaulted or had a friend assaulted? Let's get one thing straight.
Once again emotion is driving people's response on this.
Back in the Saddle -
Just rejoined discussion. Had to laugh at your comment because people that really know me say I need to show more emotion. I wasn't being emotional at all. MY POINT was that when you are assaulted, it is inaccurate to call it "an axe to grind". And if it ever happens to you, you would know what I mean. It is normal for a person who has been viciously attacked to seek retribution. You seek retribution because of the injustice you have suffered, not for any "axe to grind".
And please...don't categorize people.
|
I can agree with much of what you have said. It most certainly is understandable, fair and right to seek justice when one has been assaulted. However, if the offended party truly had no axe to grind, the American justice system would look very different. The offended party would testify, the jury would render it's judgement and the judge would pronounce sentence. There would be no need for lawyers, witnesses, cross-examination, evidence. But it is common that the offended party tells only part of the story, embellishes, minimizes their own role, remembers details incorrectly, perceives details based on bias, or flat out alters the truth in an attempt to get retribution. Thus it is always wise to assume that the accuser has an axe of some sort to grind. To assume otherwise is to refuse to critically examine the accuser's statements. While we naturally want to be sympathetic toward the victim, that is an emotional response.
In this case, however, there is more than just the assault, there is also the perceived injustice of the prosecutor not prosecuting the case which is driving this little
PR job. That doubles the number of axes in this case.
As for categorizing people, we all do it every day. It's the way our brains work. New information is processed and stored in terms of how it is similar and dissimilar to previously processed information. We categorize to survive. But, with the notable exception of my response to Mwanr1, I have been very careful not to categorize the people in this discussion, merely the responses. And it is accurate to categorize many of the responses in this discussion as emotion-based.