I think Kevin's point is the problem of passing judgment on the people involved as if we know everything there is to know about the situation when we don't.

First, I'm a lawyer, not a judge, so I don't pass judgment on people, I try to get someone else to. Technicalities matter! Second, when I do this, I know as much, if not more than anyone involved and I am in a very good place to be making recommendations to the Court based on my research and knowledge of the law and knowledge of the facts, neither of which anyone has command of here. You took some snarky editorialized Fox Newsish piece and piled on.

And... this is news? Really?

No shit. Of course, the truth is always somewhere in between. No shit. Of course, we don't know the full story based on news reports.

The fact still remains that humans (all humans) form opinions of what we read and hear. Whether we are considered to be "passing judgment" is simply a matter of whether and how we express opinions. After all, Kevin is still passing judgment in this thread.

If only we could preach the "don't pass judgment" and "this is news?" thing in every GC thread. There would be few discussions of any topic and that includes threads about alleged pledging and hazing incidents. I guess it's okay to "pass judgment" for some topics for which we have limited knowledge and not for other topics for which we have limited knowledge.

/rant

Thank you. I guess I'm just not seeing the problem with what's going on in this thread.

If we can't react to what's being presented to us, then I guess that means we can't react to anything unless we see it with our own eyes.

Heck, why do we even have a News & Politics forum on this site if we can't discuss what we read in the news?

I can't really recall a thread like this. This is a story about a very intimate family situation with allegations going both ways. It's generally thought of as rude to gossip about other families' intimate matters. The news publisher made an unethical choice to publish this story. That doesn't mean it's right to make assumptions about the family. And because some news publisher made that bad choice, everyone else is not obligated to follow that story or the drama that ensues.

I did comment on the story from a legal standpoint to clear up the misconception that always, everywhere, support ends at 18. Otherwise, from the getgo, I've insisted that no one here has all of the facts and to make snide remarks towards the parents or the child based on what you know is in bad taste.

Oh please...LOL.


Again, no shit.

And, again, keep this mind for other GC threads including those predictable and presumptuous hazing incident threads in which many GCers assume the stories are factual and assume they have enough info to form an opinion.

This is what I was getting at. I'm pretty sure the majority of "news" posts on GC follow:

1) Here's a news article
2) First impressions, but we'll wait until the courts sort it out
3) Courts said x, y, z
4) Additional opinions based on x, y, z

None of those seem to be a big issue. Not being argumentative, but I don't know why this one is different.

ETA:

Cool. So when new members post and we jump to "It sounds like you're not being completely truthful. You sound like a spoiled brat who doesn't know how to accept a bid from people who like you. You're a terrible person," that's OK? ;)

We didn't make it news, but come on -- you know that in our current news cycle, even small things become national stories. I'm still not understanding why THIS story seems to affect you like this.

And touche re: the lawyer/judge thing :)

It isn't any different.

I'm just commenting on the funniness of the "we don't knoooooow...this is a familyyyyyyyy thing" posts. LOL.

Ditto lol

Yeah. I know.

Of course, sometimes we go overboard there, too.

She won't be pledging a sorority!