You have admitted that you chose to construe as a victim, for your own inner reasons, which are not now under discussion, someone who was doing what he chose to do, and enjoyed, I mean "got off on," the social results of.
CH was a victim of a nasty group dynamic- that is a separate issue from the Ch/Poet thing. and whether CH ENJOYED being a victim of the group, or not, it has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of the conduct of the group that acted against him.
The issue is whether CH was or was not the "victim" (your word in the above) of a "nasty group dynamic."
Your chosen "victim" was, in actuality, getting off, and keeping up the behavior the group tried to stop so he could keep getting off -- and you knew it!
The "nasty group dynamic" was people, not realizing as you evidently did, that he was "getting off on" the social opprobrium in which his behavior resulted, trying to get him back into the discussions, and expressing their moral revulsion at the dual ways he was "getting off":
1) by the sexual allusions and claims he made about more than one female
2) by the social opprobrium doing that and persisting in doing that and suing to be able to keep doing that elicited
Your position now is that even if he got off on the social dynamic he was creating and perpetuating for that purpose, and resisted the numerous attempts to "help" him save face and end it by those who didn't understand he "got off on" that dynamic as well as on the sexual, sadistic stuff, the bad guys are the ones who tried to make him stop the sexual, sadistic stuff. Even though he was eliciting it because he got off on it.
It's a downright unusual philosophical position. Never heard one quite like it before.
whether CH ENJOYED being a victim of the group or not, it has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of the conduct of the group that acted against him.
It is odd to call someone who manipulates a group into doing what gets him off that group's "victim."
Really unusual way of thinking. |
