Ed Piskor Has Passed 5 5

[Prince Namor]

On 4/3/2024 at 12:07 PM, sfcityduck said:

Neither you nor I know the facts. 

Then there'd be no point in discussing it.

As it is, we discuss it based on what we DO know. Would she show the bare minimum of information to get her point across? Or did she show the worst of it to make sure she got her point across?

[Prince Namor]

On 4/3/2024 at 8:11 AM, Ken Aldred said:

Absolutely.  I have Asperger's, depression, borderline mood fluctuation, ADD, OCD, trauma-related PTSD, and it should be obvious to others that a mixture of that intensity creates serious problems about remaining on an even keel.  Except it's largely invisible, with little external indication, no clearly perceivable physical marker.  I had no assistance whatsoever or diagnosis until I was 40 years old, and until then it felt like being trapped in an abyss.   Given how much I get hammered down by my spectrum condition, and the very negative ideation induced by it, I can understand the overwhelming despair in a situation like this one.  Certainly, at present, it's quite a struggle, and maybe miraculous I've made it through six decades.  Mental illness tests resilience, the ability to work through the nihilism and manage to reach and experience another brighter day, and not all of us make it. It's horrendous to be in thrall to that.

The problem with society's understanding of these things is that everyone has some of these in small doses that they're easily able to 'get over'. As you know, for someone who has full-blown PTSD or Aspergers or Depression, there's no 'getting over it' EVER.

You learn to function. And then deal as best you can when any of those decides rear back and smack you upside the head. 

Most of society has absolutely no idea what that's like to go through each day dealing with that. 

[sfcityduck]

On 4/2/2024 at 10:10 PM, Prince Namor said:

Then there'd be no point in discussing it.

As it is, we discuss it based on what we DO know. Would she show the bare minimum of information to get her point across? Or did she show the worst of it to make sure she got her point across?

Who knows? Not you or me. And no doubt its more than just emails.

[Prince Namor]

On 4/2/2024 at 10:49 PM, sfcityduck said:

I gotta say I find this post offensive.

What is it specifically you find offensive?

On 4/2/2024 at 10:49 PM, sfcityduck said:

First, a 17 year-old young woman is below the age of consent in many states.

Correct. And in many states she isn't.

On 4/2/2024 at 10:49 PM, sfcityduck said:

The trend in state laws has been to increase the age of consent. A lot folks find states that have age of consent laws that allow older males up to certain ages to have sexual relations with women as young as 13 as super creepy. 

Ok. And no one is debating that here...

On 4/2/2024 at 10:49 PM, sfcityduck said:

A 17 year old is still a 17 year old. 20-30-40 years ago fewer, if any, states would have extended age of consent to 17 year olds. Our society is getting smarter not dumber on this issue (well not everyone obviously).

If 17 year old teens are still falling for it... how is that getting smarter? A 17 year old has access to more information than ever before, a MILLION times more information than they did even 20 years ago. The goal should be to teach our kids, THIS IS WRONG (if that's what the parents believe), so that they can, THEMSELVES, make an informed decision.

This type of thinking begins early... first you put protectors in your wall sockets, so your baby can't stick their fingers in the wall, but ultimately as they get to an age where you can teach them - you teach them to just not do it. Those pesky open holes of electricity will remain as a possibility to shock them, but at a certain point they just know, NOT to put their finger in there.

On 4/2/2024 at 10:49 PM, sfcityduck said:

Most folks realize that it helps to have community help to raise a child, especially in deterring older men from taking advantage of teen women.The entire point of age of consent laws is that young women are just that: Young. They are inexperienced. They are subject to influence. They are irrational. That's why we try to protect them. We don't let them vote, we don't let them drink, why do you want to let older men pursue them for sex?

I've worked with hundreds, HUNDREDS of 18 year old strippers over the last 25 years. And either they had a Matrix-like download of information to their brain at 18 that suddenly turned them into... 'experienced adults', or... they knew a lot more before that 18th birthday than I guess most people would give them credit for. 

And I don't mean that just in terms of BAD stuff. I mean in terms of understanding sexual harassment, understanding the laws around it, understanding politics, understanding the world we live in, understanding history... the LAW says 18. But let's not act like it's a magical age where they suddenly become a real adult in any means other than the eyes of the law. 

The Law is there to protect them legally. The responsibility of parents, should be there to do the real work of TEACHING them critical reasoning skills.

On 4/2/2024 at 10:49 PM, sfcityduck said:

The person here who did not accept personal responsibility to defend himself was 41 year old Ed.

He did defend himself in the letter. 

There was no court of law, because there were no charges filed.

He was convicted in the court of public opinion by, as you said, 'not having all the facts'.

[Prince Namor]

On 4/3/2024 at 12:30 PM, sfcityduck said:

Who knows? Not you or me. And no doubt its more than just emails.

I thought they both said it wasn't. That they had no physical contact when she was underage.

[sfcityduck]

On 4/2/2024 at 10:15 PM, Prince Namor said:

The problem with society's understanding of these things is that everyone has some of these in small doses that they're easily able to 'get over'. As you know, for someone who has full-blown PTSD or Aspergers or Depression, there's no 'getting over it' EVER.

You learn to function. And then deal as best you can when any of those decides rear back and smack you upside the head. 

Most of society has absolutely no idea what that's like to go through each day dealing with that. 

I'd bet you're right on that last sentence. Which is why if Ed had any of those conditions, its likely most did not know it. So I don't think that is grounds for blaming the young woman for telling her story.

Edited April 3 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 4/2/2024 at 10:33 PM, Prince Namor said:

I thought they both said it wasn't. That they had no physical contact when she was underage.

I didn't say physical contact. I understand that he said he chatted with her.

[Prince Namor]

On 4/3/2024 at 12:33 PM, sfcityduck said:

I'd bet your right on that last sentence. Which is why if Ed had any of those conditions, its likely most did not know it. So I don't think that is grounds for blaming the young woman for telling her story.

No, I don't blame her for that.

But do we hold her accountable for the way she did it? If you're going to come forward, come forward with an attorney. Press charges. 

Now maybe she TRIED to and an attorney said, "You don't have enough there to DO anything."

And so she just decided, I need to get this off my conscious. I need to speak out so that maybe others won't be afraid to speak out. 

I don't blame her for that.

It's just an unfortunate outcome as a result of it. 

[sfcityduck]

On 4/2/2024 at 10:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

No, I don't blame her for that.

But do we hold her accountable for the way she did it? If you're going to come forward, come forward with an attorney. Press charges. 

 

That choice is hers. I don't think it is any of our roles to tell a woman who feels the way she did to keep it quiet or hire an attorney for a civil suit or file charges. She has a range of other choices. And what choice she did chose, to tell her story, was well within the range of choices that were her right to exercise. As an attorney, I don't feel its fair or equal to impose an obligation on some people to incur the cost of seeking legal advice before they take a step which doesn't require legal advice in the first place.

Ed also had choices. One remedy, if the story was false, was for Ed to sue her. Another was to comprehensively tell his side of the story and rebut whatever she said that was in error. He chose differently.

[sfcityduck]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:49 AM, sfcityduck said: "The trend in state laws has been to increase the age of consent. ... A 17 year old is still a 17 year old. 20-30-40 years ago fewer, if any, states would have extended age of consent to 17 year olds. Our society is getting smarter not dumber on this issue (well not everyone obviously)."

My supplemental comment: What that statement meant, and you misinterpreted, is that society is getting smarter about the age of consent by moving it upward not downwards. 

Prince Namor responded: "If 17 year old teens are still falling for it... how is that getting smarter? A 17 year old has access to more information than ever before, a MILLION times more information than they did even 20 years ago. The goal should be to teach our kids, THIS IS WRONG (if that's what the parents believe), so that they can, THEMSELVES, make an informed decision."

My response: The philosophy of our criminal justice system is to protect people from wrongdoers. We have laws that seek to punish perpetrators and protect individuals who are vulnerable -- like young teenage girls. While teaching children to protect themselves is one solution, another is to seek to protect them from harmful conduct by criminalizing those who seek to lure them into it.  That's why we have age of consent laws (and anti-drug laws and age limits on alcohol, etc.). This is a supplement to, not a substitute for, parenting. And parenting is a supplement to, not a substitute for, criminal laws. They involve different complementary efforts to guard against the same risk, as well achieving other goals which are unique to both strategies (for consent laws - deterrence and punishment of wrongdoers).

[wombat]

So we want to gatekeep when someone can share their own experiences? You have to first seek out an attorney? 

[Prince Namor]

On 4/3/2024 at 12:45 PM, sfcityduck said:

That choice is hers. I don't think it is any of our roles to tell a woman who feels the way she did to keep it quiet or hire an attorney for a civil suit or file charges. She has a range of other choices. And what choice she did chose, to tell her story, was well within the range of choices that were her right to exercise. As an attorney, I don't feel its fair or equal to impose an obligation on some people to incur the cost of seeking legal advice before they take a step which doesn't require legal advice in the first place.

I don't disagree. But actions have consequences, as we've seen here. 

On 4/3/2024 at 12:45 PM, sfcityduck said:

Ed also had choices. One remedy, if the story was false, was for Ed to sue her. Another was to comprehensively tell his side of the story and rebut whatever she said that was in error. He chose differently.

Yeah... much as some have to live with the stress and accusations and negativity of going through a law suit like this, Ed had already seen what that would've been like. 
 

Regardless of what the LAW is here... Ed didn't want to relive those bad decisions over and over in court to be rejudged by society and rejudged by society... women go through the same thing from the other side. 
 

Ed wasn't strong enough to handle it. 

[sfcityduck]

On 4/2/2024 at 10:32 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

I've worked with hundreds, HUNDREDS of 18 year old strippers over the last 25 years. And either they had a Matrix-like download of information to their brain at 18 that suddenly turned them into... 'experienced adults', or... they knew a lot more before that 18th birthday than I guess most people would give them credit for. 

And I don't mean that just in terms of BAD stuff. I mean in terms of understanding sexual harassment, understanding the laws around it, understanding politics, understanding the world we live in, understanding history... the LAW says 18. But let's not act like it's a magical age where they suddenly become a real adult in any means other than the eyes of the law. 

The Law is there to protect them legally. The responsibility of parents, should be there to do the real work of TEACHING them critical reasoning skills.

 

I don't believe the 17 year-old at issue here had the same upbringing or experiences of the hundreds of 18 year old strippers you've worked with over the past 25 years (I hope as a social worker?). And I'm not sure I'm going to celebrate the parents that taught their daughters the critical reasoning skills that made them turn to stripping, and for some the likely associated sex trades. 

You miss the point of age of consent laws. They are not intended to supplant parenting. They are intended to set a societal value - the notion that young women of age 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 should not be exploited for sex by older men. Call me what you want, but I'm ok with that notion. It may not work in a perfect way, but I'm not convinced its a bad aspiration.

[Prince Namor]

On 4/3/2024 at 12:59 PM, wombat said:

So we want to gatekeep when someone can share their own experiences? You have to first seek out an attorney? 

No one said anything about gate keeping or stopping her from saying anything.

I was looking at it from my own perspective as to how to approach it. 
 

In my writings I'm currently working on events from my childhood... events that have shaped me as a person. If I name names and make it public in this book, it will invariably effect the lives of others. DRASTICALLY. 
 

What I went through and what I saw and what I experienced was illegal. It was bad. 
 

I have no legal recourse, nor am I interested in one, I personally find the writing of it to be extremely therapeutic and more than enough... but I understand my RESPONSIBILITY in regards to making it public. 
 

And what happened to me is 1000 times worse and more criminal than what happened to Molly in this situation. 
 

So yeah... I don't have an issue saying, maybe people should think about it and get professional advice first. I'm 100% for female empowerment. It doesn't block my view of social responsibility though. 

[Prince Namor]

On 4/3/2024 at 1:04 PM, sfcityduck said:

I don't believe the 17 year-old at issue here had the same upbringing or experiences of the hundreds of 18 year old strippers you've worked with over the past 25 years (I hope as a social worker?). And I'm not sure I'm going to celebrate the parents that taught their daughters the critical reasoning skills that made them turn to stripping, and for some the likely associated sex trades. 
 

Have you seen Molly's comic book art? There's a reason she connected with Ed. 
It was by no means My Little Pony. 

On 4/3/2024 at 1:04 PM, sfcityduck said:

You miss the point of age of consent laws. They are not intended to supplant parenting. They are intended to set a societal value - the notion that young women of age 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 should not be exploited for sex by older men. Call me what you want, but I'm ok with that notion. It may not work in a perfect way, but I'm not convinced it's a bad aspiration.

Thats what I said. 

[wombat]

On 4/3/2024 at 2:12 AM, Prince Namor said:

No one said anything about gate keeping or stopping her from saying anything.

I was looking at it from my own perspective as to how to approach it. 
 

In my writings I'm currently working on events from my childhood... events that have shaped me as a person. If I name names and make it public in this book, it will invariably effect the lives of others. DRASTICALLY. 
 

What I went through and what I saw and what I experienced was illegal. It was bad. 
 

I have no legal recourse, nor am I interested in one, I personally find the writing of it to be extremely therapeutic and more than enough... but I understand my RESPONSIBILITY in regards to making it public. 
 

And what happened to me is 1000 times worse and more criminal than what happened to Molly in this situation. 
 

So yeah... I don't have an issue saying, maybe people should think about it and get professional advice first. I'm 100% for female empowerment. It doesn't block my view of social responsibility though. 

I don't think she had any "social responsibility" to Ed. And I know a lot of this has been framed as young girl vs. older man. I've done it myself. But I certainly wouldn't feel any different if the genders were different. 

[Prince Namor]

On 4/3/2024 at 1:23 PM, wombat said:

I don't think she had any "social responsibility" to Ed. And I know a lot of this has been framed as young girl vs. older man. I've done it myself. But I certainly wouldn't feel any different if the genders were different. 

It's NOT social responsibility to Ed. It's to herself.

She has to live with the aftermath of it. Is the pain so bad that whatever happens as a result of going public... worth it?

I ask myself that question every day when I write about this stuff from my past.

What will happen to me? How will it affect me? Is writing it down enough to heal? Or do I scream it from the mountain tops to let every one know and then live with whatever the residual is?

I GET that for some people they MUST do something to stop the pain of what they went through. They BRAVELY sit before the judgmental eyes of the world and state their case and fight for it. It IS worth it for them. For some it's not. 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 4/2/2024 at 10:32 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

The Law is there to protect them legally. The responsibility of parents, should be there to do the real work of TEACHING them critical reasoning skills.

He did defend himself in the letter. 

There was no court of law, because there were no charges filed.

He was convicted in the court of public opinion by, as you said, 'not having all the facts'.

He wasn't convicted because the jury of public opinion was still out. One missive is not a defense. It's a skirmish. And what he said wasn't an artful or coherent defense. Maybe he had a better more coherent story to tell but we'll never know. I've read some other suicide letters, and I've never seen one like this. This one was calm, calculated, and contradictory - alternatingly apologetic and unapologetic. The cynic in me can't help but think it was crafted, in part, in an attempt to get around the Hearsay Rule and be admissible for the truth of what he stated. The statement "There needs to be recourse for my loved ones. I’m dead. I don’t have a reason to lie" appears crafted for a court. His pleas for his family to sue Molly Wright are remarkable. I don't know what the guy was thinking. 

 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 4/2/2024 at 11:15 PM, Prince Namor said:

Have you seen Molly's comic book art? There's a reason she connected with Ed. 
It was by no means My Little Pony. 

 

Not sure what you are implying here, but it does not look good to me.

[COI]

Terrible situation, ugly thread.

We've had exponential growth in technology, but we have not grown INTO the technology and we seem to have no chance of catching up. 

What's worse is that the nature of social media appears to be projecting, exploiting and amplifying our worst traits. Not individually, but in sum. The most extreme, maladjusted and misinformed voices get to dictate the terms of the discourse.

We've equipped everyone with the tools to express themselves, but not the skills to evaluate the value of those expressions. I don't think any of us know what we're doing here, but I do know that many people actively make things worse when they decide to add to the noise every minute of every waking hour. I'm not the arbiter of worthwhile utterances, and I'm just as guilty as anyone of saying nonsense, but I think it would serve us all to remember that just because you can, doesn't mean you should. In the vast majority of instances where you feel compelled to speak, you don't have much of value to add, and in some cases you might actually do some damage, regardless of your intentions. 

I try to tell myself this on a daily basis, but sometimes I just can't help myself. Like right now.

My condolences to anyone who knew him..