bobalot wrote:Broomstick wrote:Korto wrote:No, she didn't have to act. She could have hunkered down and hoped that providence would save her. That's very easy to do. After ten years she would be well aware that if she did nothing, nothing bad would happen to her (unless there's something we haven't been told. A recent change in situation).
"Nothing bad would happen to her?" You don't think being repeatedly raped is a bad thing? Her daughter didn't arise by parthenogenesis. Also, it's being reported that one of the women has hearing loss and some facial disfigurement from repeated/severe beatings so physical abuse was always a risk.
I don't think you intended to be that callous, but you might want to reconsider the notion that "nothing bad" would happen if their captivity continued.
Especially since they were
raped, beaten, served 'abduction day' cake
From the article
The women were allegedly kept bound by chains and ropes in Castro's basement, and each was subject to years of sexual and physical abuse.
Berry and Knight both lost several unborn babies because of beatings.
When Berry's baby Jocelyn was born in a plastic paddling pool in 2007, Castro told Berry that if the baby died, so would she, according to WEWS, which quoted an unnamed law enforcement source.
The baby stopped breathing, but Berry gave her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
Yes, I agree her home-life was certainly less than ideal, although demonstrably survivable. However bad her day to day existence was, I believe we can assume that whatever Castro would do to her if she was caught trying to escape would be considerably worse, and very possibly fatal.
Other unnamed police sources told another local TV station that Castro used a "sick" game to "train" his captives not to run away.
Sources told WOIO-TV that Castro would "play this little dangerous game that he would tell the women he was about to leave the home, and then he would wait and if one of them tried to open that door, he would go in and attack them".
So, a savage beating could be expected, for one.
This is all the time I really intend to spend on this red herring.
Flagg wrote:I take issue with the idea that what he did isn't heroic. It baffles me that there is even a debate as well. But a black ex con can't be a hero in this country without people bitching about it.
I'll take that as a general comment, not particularly targeted at me, else I'd have to ask you to substantiate any accusations of racism, and I really couldn't be arsed.
I also at least partially agree with Alyeska. The person in question's own opinion on whether or not they qualify as a hero is seldom worth giving much weight to, although I see no theoretical reason why a braggart couldn't also be a hero.
This seems to me to come down to either one of two things:
1) Your definition of a heroic act, with mine including a very good chance of serious adverse consequences (high danger)
or
2) Your appraisal of the danger of what he did. When I put himself in his shoes, it doesn't feel particularly life-threatening.
If you disagree with (1), well that's fine but I don't see any way forward. If you disagree with (2), well you may be right, it may be cultural differences, it may be that I've never had to break in someone's door and so I don't know how it feels, and maybe I can be convinced with statistics of shootings of attempted break-ins and surveys of the climate of fear caused by the Castle laws. But you've got to ask yourself, is it really worth it to convince one lone idiot in another country? Because I respect the guy for what he did, he did a good thing, and I'm tired of this pointless debate.
