Some of the time I agree with their choices. It would be pretty pedantic to remove a blog entitled 'Happy Birthday Jimnastics!'
Some of the time I disagree with their choices, or don't understand their choices, but there's naff all I can do about that. It's their picking and choosing, not mine.
I only have control over my own choices, not the site owners', not other member's choices.
If someone breaks a rule by asking a question, or quoting something copyrighted citing the source, I'll review that according to it's content, rather than the rules. If the citation, or question is harmful to others (like, all so-and-so's should be killed) then I may make use of the rules.
Discretion may at times be the better part of valour.
Agreed, but only if the site owners deem it a breach worthy of action, which isn't for lowly bloggers to decide.
Arguing about what we can and can't post therefore becomes somewhat immaterial, except as a fun debate exercise.
I think there are more salient issues which could affect the site's legal position than asking questions in a blog, or quoting copyrighted material citing the source.
I've seen many a topic, or blogger go to quite an extreme before the issue is tackled.
I'm not about to become unsingle because other people don't like being single. I'm independent, self-sufficient and I can make decisions for myself. It's called emotional maturity.
The only misgiving I have about the quote is the use of the word 'something', rather than 'someone'. It's objectifying, which isn't emotionally mature.
I agree, Ekself, we cannot truly understand anyone as we will always interpret from our own value framework, but we can review without judgement if we choose.
The man is saying, "You're bad. You've done bad things to me. You should know how bad you are."
She replies with a glib, "The bible says god will forgive me."
Perhaps she is reflecting his own lack of personal responsibility in that statement. Perhaps she is more astute than you have given her credit for. Perhaps he has had a part to play in their mutual interaction.
Yes, judgement and judging may be tied together, but making a judgement that someone is a negative influence in your own life is different from judging them to be a bad person.
You're bad. You've done bad things to me. You should know how bad you are.
Or,
I'm okay, you're okay, but this isn't what I want.
The former is about blame, the latter is about taking responsibility.
You shouldn't cross the road markings of the intersection unless you have the ability to reach your next point of destination without blocking the intersection.
If you've crossed the road markings, but don't have clear passage, you're already at fault. You're not in a position to blame the person behind you for blocking your ability to reverse, particularly if they are behind the road markings and are not blocking the intersection themselves.
It would be responsible driving to allow enough room for someone to reverse if they have made an error of judgement, or had technical issues at an inopportune moment. It wouldn't be a legal requirement to leave enough room because the car behind has the jurisdiction to go up to the road markings if the space is available. If the car in front moves past the road markings it's reasonable to assume that they have passage to clear the intersection leaving the space up to the road markings available.
I'm not sure how that assumption would hold up if the car in front crossed the road markings whilst traffic lights were red making it very clear that they don't have clear passage across the intersection, but the car in front would still be at fault.
The psychiatrists might not have personally interacted with Donald Trump, but there is a wealth of footage to observe his behaviour.
In some ways this can be an advantage when observing someone with certain personality anomalies - those who lack emotional empathy, but have a cognitive sense of it, are renowned for manipulative behaviours. A truer picture of their functionality may be gleaned if they're not aware they are being scrutinised by a psychiatrist.
I was of the understanding that distance diagnoses were considered unethical and a breach of practise. It was once a two line clause, but after Trumps election extended to a couple of pages of guidelines. I was of the understanding that a number of eminent psychiatrists had openly campaigned for a full psychiatric assessment based upon Trump displaying traits of 'dangerousness'.
If Yale University has since associated itself with suggesting he is suffering from a 'dangerous mental illness' rather than 'displaying traits of dangerousness which warrant assessment', they have thrown all caution to the wind in terms of their own standing.
I suspect the phrase 'dangerous mental illness' may be a matter of misrepresentation by the media, but if it isn't and they have upped their ante, it says something about the seriousness of the situation. Perhaps that's not surprising given Trump's recent withdrawals of aid and troops, demonstrating that his dangerousness is escalating as the psychiatrists in question predicted.
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,973)
RE: Ladys Night