|
|
|
|
|
|
by intralizee
2746 days ago
|
|
|
I would think your assessment is correct for approaching things at first glance but I would say the people who abused me were "corrupt" at the end of the day. Not sure if that is the best word but I'll use it. I took it as far as possible for me to examine if they were corrupt and came to this conclusion. You're corrupt when the other person who has been traumatized by you (unjustly as well), goes through a lengthy processes of doing whatever is legally possible to illustrate the abuse and you choose to deny it. I found out the hospital, the university police and even the fbi would rather me not have any remedy to the torture I went through and for their illusions to not be shattered. Even my insurance that was billed wouldn't do anything when I reported it. HIPAA was even violated as the hospital lawyer had access to my complete medical history without my consent. I reported that and I doubt the government agencies did anything. Born with faith in the system, as I would prefer the logic of systems to emotional individualists. Yet, I learned the systems are completely broken for the wealthy. |
|
|
You mentioned you were born with faith in the system and would prefer logic of emotion. This is precisely why I make the argument at a higher level of abstraction. I believe the default viewpoint is the one u put forward that we tend to assume people are reasonable. It's an unwarranted assumption that leads us to a dangerous place and a healthy dose of skepticism goes a long way.
I believe the best way to make progress on these issues is for the wider public to understand how deeply flawed our systems for coming to conclusions are and to promote and permit dissent in order to raise the quality of thinking and decision making. That's much easier to do when at least some people are willing to say "well now hold on... it could be that WE are actually wrong about this and that warrants discussion". That's what would have given you a chance.