by yukonjasper on Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:24 pm
I agree that there are some cases that are absolutes and those extreme cases should be looked at and dealt with as it shows a clear pattern of predatory behavior and underlying psychological issues. There are, however, societal "norms and morality" that become out of date and are difficult to isolate as specific to one person if an entire population isn't sensitive to it. If through the lens of time, an old behavior is seen to be unacceptable by today's standards, is it helpful to retroactively seek retribution?
Somewhat analogous to this would be slavery - at one point it was both legal and common place, but by todays standards and by most western cultures it would be inconceivable to permit it and it is looked upon with disdain. The people living at that time accepted it and didn't think much of it - they didn't wrestle much with the morality of it. Same with ancient Rome and the Orgies that were commonplace among the aristocracy - cannibalism in some societies that was commonplace fairly recently - the list goes on and on.
Where do you draw the line and what behavior, however reprehensible today, is over the line enough to retroactively punish. There are clearly some lines most if not all could agree on - rape, incest, murder etc. - but some behavior was relatively harmless in the context of the day - was it good behavior, no - was it civilized and intelligent behavior in the context of a more "enlightened" society, no - but should it be enough to end a career or black ball someone?
I'll wait for an absolutist to start sniping here. I get the zero-tolerance culture that exists today, I just don't think it should apply to in some cases where time has passed and there is little demonstrable damage.
Flame suit on.
Deo Adjuvante Non Timendum - (with the help of God there is nothing to be afraid of)
Spectamur Agendo - (We are proven by our actions)
Non Ducor, Duco - (I am not led, I lead)
NRA Life Member