To speak or Not to speak

[Red909XMZ1]

Nov 12, 2020 19:18:21 GMT starsky said:

Nov 12, 2020 17:48:37 GMT V said:

What I would or would not do doesn't matter. The public has no right to suspect anyone without evidence, they can if they want but it is wrong to do so. It is the job of the police to investigate and charge people with crimes. They have not been charged with any crime relating to the EAR/ONS case. Until that happens it isn't really our business to worry about what they will or will not say. 

I don't understand the analogy about the German neighbor. Are you saying every German from that time must convince you they hate Hitler otherwise they are Nazis? If JJD's family says they were not involved would you automatically believe them on their word alone? Probably not. Their lives are being picked apart through no fault of their own. They are probably remaining silent to weather the storm of people who won't leave them alone even though the man responsible has been captured and convicted. 

Well, we obviously disagree. It's all about freedom of thought. The public has every right to make internal judgments about anyone they want. The morality of it depends on the motivation--am I intending harm in some way (slander or abuse), or am I interested in truth and justice. As for the police in this case, we all know where that ended up, and why so many are cynical. The German neighbor has the right to be silent, and I have the right to make a judgment based on that. Love can coexist with suspicion, which is what happened. The neighbor was still a neighbor we loved, and he loved us, until he passed on. You're welcome to reply, but I'm not continuing down this rabbit hole.

Starsky stated: "The German neighbor has the right to be silent, and I have the right to make a judgment based on that."

Starsky, I sincerely hope you are kidding.

Just because a German person is silent regarding Hitler does not mean he or she is a fan of Hitler.

Respectfully, Starsky, this is faulty thinking.

I am German and Swiss and rarely speak about Hitler. Do I agree with the monstrous acts that Hitler (who was originally from Austria and was Austrian) committed?

Absolutely not! He was truly an evil monster -- in every way imaginable.

This post brings to my mind being invited to a beautiful, formal dinner at the house of a close female friend, years ago.

Her parents (mother and step-father) are quite wealthy, and they have a German, live-in maid. She was serving dinner, when all of a sudden the step-father(who is Scottish) looks at me (knowing I am German) and states, "Hitler was really misunderstood, and was actually a very brilliant guy and wonderful leader, don't you agree?"

Well, my mouth literally fell open, and I just about dropped my spoon right into the soup I was eating!

I could not believe he would make such a horrific statement, and think that I would agree, just because I am German.

I looked up at the maid, and she rolled her eyes, as to suggest to me that she had heard this insanity before, and that there would be nothing I could do to change his twisted views.

I quickly composed myself, and nicely changed the subject. I knew my friend, thankfully, shared none of his views regarding Hitler, and we did not discuss it then, nor have we since.

I also silently made a promise to myself that I would never step foot into my friend's parents' home ever again.

I am happy to report that my friend's long-suffering mother (who does not share the views of the step-father) has finally found the strength to divorce this lunatic.

What is my point, though, in telling you this experience?

My point is, pure and simple, that silence does not necessarily equate to agreement with a particular person, position, or viewpoint.

Silence can indicate many things -- and, it often can indicate that the speaker is highly uncomfortable with the subject matter and/or person they are conversing with.

[V]

Nov 13, 2020 20:13:50 GMT justasking said:

If they don't speak, it's frowned upon. But if they did speak, their words would be scrutinized paranoiacally to find something suspicious in what they said. Basically, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Maybe they feel that it's less inflammable and damaging if they stick to the omission, instead of entering an uncharted territory to walk on eggshells.

That's a great point. 

[cleopatra]

Nov 13, 2020 15:09:36 GMT htx said:

Nov 12, 2020 16:58:46 GMT starsky said:

So the assumption is their silence has nothing to do with his crimes. I don't buy that. If JJD were part of your family, would you be silent, or would you say something? I know I would be horrified, and do my best to express sympathy and sorrow, and even try to help the victims. The public has every right to suspect family members who are silent are hiding from something, or proud of JJD. Growing up we had a German neighbor who was silent about WWII. But later in life he boldly declared his love for Hitler.

His daughters and his wife ARE victims in this. No, they aren't victims in the same way as those who suffered his horrible crimes, but their lives have been absolutely upended and crushed by the revelation that their father, and Sharon's husband, the man they long loved, did these unspeakable things. They don't owe us an apology; in fact, if anyone here is owed an apology, it shoud be them, for people like you implying they had something to do with his crimes.

Well, they do owe someone something.  They have megabucks that rightfully belongs to Janelle Cruz's family.  They didn't earn that money, JJD did. 

JJD sits in prison knowing he took care of his daughters and granddaughter, making sure they'd still live comfortably when he was gone.  Professor Snelling and the father who died of a heart attack from heartache over his daughter's attack were not able to help their daughters.