Quote:
Originally Posted by theflower
you continue to conflate the concept of whether what you say here will affect Boyd's civil court case with the concept of whether it is morally right or wrong for you and others to be making serious judgments about another person based on unverified unsubstantiated one-sided allegations which is what i'm talking about. one has nothing to do with the other.
|
And you continue to mistakenly assume that you can impose YOUR moral definitions on others and that somehow your standard of what is moral is "factual". It is only factual for you, please be very clear about that. Your opinion does NOT define some "objective" standard of what is "moral" for everyone, just as my opinion doesn't make it objectively factual either.
To me, the moral relationship of one to the other is VERY MUCH affected by whether it influences the actual outcome of Boyd's case. If our talk here negatively affected the facts presented, or for instance if a lawyer could present selectively chosen screenshots of what is said here as "factual evidence" of either wrong-doing or innocence... I'd say that should make us all be very careful and thoughtful about what is said. I'd agree there are moral implications.
Since that's not the case, and he's a celebrity, and this info is out and he's been kicked out of the band, speculation and discussion on a fan message board is not only fine, it's the most predictable and understandable thing in the world. And 98% of what's posted is posted withOUT meanspiritedness. So I do not see a moral conflict. I have read your opinion, and I still don't see one, and I will continue to discuss as I have with no sense of wrongdoing.
You do you, but don't think for a second that anyone but you sees you as the moral standard-bearer for what is morally ok and what's not. You do you... just like everyone else here will do themselves. Ok, that sounds bizarre, but you get the point...