Well, you're right but not completely. I'm not saying that FB were right to apply whatever corrective action their applied following (supposedly) report of this image via their standard procedures. I'm saying that the problem is elsewhere, and not in the what picture shows or FB action, especially if Larry's right and the action is taken automatically after so many people have filed their complaints with the system.
Now, I wonder - was it a smart move on your part to invite over the same person who called the police previous time over? Specifically, if you had made amends with them - then most certainly - yes, it was a good faith move to invite them over. But if you were still having problem with them - why would you have to invite them to begin with? In order for some other person to come along? Have you taken your time to consider the implications? I'm not suggesting that you're guilty, Dave. However I believe there're questions that deserve to be asked here regarding the smartness of your move. And no, you're not guilty for having a party and thus the police are not right to have shut down your party. But you cannot blame the police for doing their work, right? Or do you suggest that the police officer arriving at the scene should have in mind the potential idea that everything may be kosher and that you're falling a victim of someone's ill-conceived move? Of course there're cases that saying that victim deserved what they got is really wrong thing, by more than one count. I still maintain this specific case is not such. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM, David Parsons <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand what you are saying, but I think you are wrong. > > Compare your scenario to this one. > > I'm having a party at my house and I have a bunch of friends over. No > big deal. Someone who has a grudge against me calls the police and > my party is shut down because of the complaint, even though none of my > neighbors had a problem with the party. > > Come some time later, I have another party, and the same person (or > any other person really) calls the police again because they have a > grudge against me. Again the party is shut down for no good reason. > > What you are saying is that it is my fault for having the party and > that I should know better than to have a party. That is blaming the > victim. Instead of pursuing the person making the accusations, you > are saying that the victim deserved what she got. "That whore should > know better than to dress like a slut, what did she think was going to > happen?" That is equivalent to what you are saying, she should have > known better, and she has no one to blame but herself. > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Boris Liberman <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:19 AM, David Parsons <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Too exhibitionist for showing a picture of her daughter? That is >>> called slut shaming (or victim blaming if you are sensitive), blaming >>> the victim for acting outside your accepted norms. >> >> Dave, let me try to explain. >> >> Dave, consider this scenario. You drive in a neighborhood and in great >> hurry you leave your car windows open. Your car gets robbed. You >> invoke insurance, and so on. While engaged in damage control you are >> let known that this neighborhood is rather full of thieves. A week >> later you have to pass by the same route again. This time, rather >> knowingly and on purpose you leave your car doors opened one more time >> and your car gets promptly robbed. This time however, along with >> invoking the insurance, you also start a very loud publicity campaign. >> >> Now, consider this: >> >> 1. Although you were quite right both times (as far theft being out of >> the law, etc), you were not very smart to leave your car doors opened. >> The first time over you were being normal human - you were in a hurry >> and you were preoccupied with something important. >> >> 2. The second time you did it on purpose. Further, this time you were >> knowingly inviting the thief so that you can cry out loud. Again - you >> were right by the letter of the law, but you were very non-smart other >> than that. Ultimately, I should point out that in this case your >> behavior may indicate a deeper underlying problem than just being >> robbed. >> >> 3. Finally, if your original plan was a publicity campaign against >> thieves in general or in this very neighborhood, don't tell me that >> the damage done to your car is something you cannot possibly stand. In >> other words - don't be childish. >> >> Now, my understanding (from reading the blog post comments) that this >> is not the very first time this lady has problem with FB authorities. >> Ultimate bottom line here is Hebrew saying "Be wise, don't be right". >> >> I hope I got my point across. Also let it be noted that this direction >> of the discussion has nothing to do with whatever was depicted in >> that/these photograph/s. >> >> >> -- >> Boris >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > > -- > David Parsons Photography > http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com > > Aloha Photographer Photoblog > http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
