What's new
By:

Tim Ballard OUR Discussion

fishonjazz said:
Your first paragraph should help reconcile your last one.

But he did it in a way that did them MORE HARM THAN THEY WERE ALREADY IN.

So lets say they were getting raped and smacked around and he removed them from that abuse and put them into a situation where now they are not only getting raped and smacked around but also water boarded and starved to death while getting raped and smacked around. Wouldnt that be worse than leaving them where they were?
Click to expand...
So, putting things together, this is what I have.

He leaves the CIA, or Homeland, or whatever the truth actually ends up being… because from what I heard the US won’t extract kids from other nations as they don’t have jurisdiction and it gets too messy.
He quits and starts OUR which is private and doesn’t have the governmental red tape, but also doesn’t have resources or contacts near the same.

This skeleton crew finds cells of girls/kids, comes in with guns blazing and frees them, but without a plan after. Only US kids if any could even be brought back anyways, the rest have to be dumped on the doorstep of the local government that don’t have the resources to support, help, relieve these kids. For that matter we have no idea if the traffickers stay in jail or how long, does it depend on the local government?

OUR leave because that’s all they do.

The kids end up on the streets again and get picked up by the next batch of abusers?

Is that basically what they say are happening?

I could be wrong, but this is what it sounds like as to why they are worse off after being “saved”. If this is true.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Today we see that same idea in the anti-racism movement being race essentialists commonly pushing for racial segregation, a.k.a affinity spaces. People are the same as they ever were.
Click to expand...
They had a good conversation going. Please stop dumping on it with your favorite lies.
 
JazzGal said:
I guess that has been one of the complaints about what OUR was doing - they didn't do follow up care with the victims, which likely ensured many of them became victims again. I have no idea about the best way to handle all of this. I agree that organizations to provide after care and resources would be a great thing for am organization to pursue.
Click to expand...
I think you answered my question best. It’s not how he/ OUR did it. It’s what they didn’t do after.
It’s that they did it at all without a proper after plan in place.
If it’s messy for the government, it’s probably going to take a whole lot of money to do right in the private sector.
 
Jazz Spazz said:
So, putting things together, this is what I have.

He leaves the CIA, or Homeland, or whatever the truth actually ends up being… because from what I heard the US won’t extract kids from other nations as they don’t have jurisdiction and it gets too messy.
He quits and starts OUR which is private and doesn’t have the governmental red tape, but also doesn’t have resources or contacts near the same.

This skeleton crew finds cells of girls/kids, comes in with guns blazing and frees them, but without a plan after. Only US kids if any could even be brought back anyways, the rest have to be dumped on the doorstep of the local government that don’t have the resources to support, help, relieve these kids. For that matter we have no idea if the traffickers stay in jail or how long, does it depend on the local government?

OUR leave because that’s all they do.

The kids end up on the streets again and get picked up by the next batch of abusers?

Is that basically what they say are happening?

I could be wrong, but this is what it sounds like as to why they are worse off after being “saved”. If this is true.
Click to expand...
I have no idea about any of this stuff. I just saw you saying he went in and saved children from sex trafficking situations. BUT.. he did it in a way to do them more harm than they were already in. Then saw you saying you couldn't understand how saving them from their situation is worse than leaving them even if they think it could have been done better.

Im just saying that if your first statement is true (that he does them more harm than they were already in) then its easy to see how saving them is worse than leaving them. Because saving them apparently puts them into a worse situation according to your post. (I have no idea if its even true that him saving them does them more harm than they were already in, I got that from your post)
 
Al-O-Meter said:
That same concept carries far beyond child abuse.

www.advocate.com

17 Antigay Leaders Exposed as Gay or Bi

<p>These hypocrites just couldn't practice what they preached.</p>
www.advocate.com www.advocate.com

Today we see that same idea in the anti-racism movement being race essentialists commonly pushing for racial segregation, a.k.a affinity spaces. People are the same as they ever were.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's as much for racism, or at least it's a far different type of thing.

It's for things that are more engrained in your DNA and you're ashamed of, so it's a type of defense mechanism to not only hide your true nature from people, but from yourself as well.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
I don't think it's as much for racism, or at least it's a far different type of thing.

It's for things that are more engrained in your DNA and you're ashamed of, so it's a type of defense mechanism to not only hide your true nature from people, but from yourself as well.
Click to expand...
It's deflection and projection, essentially. My daughter, who came out as bi in high school, had a friend who went crazy anti-gay and totally became my daughter's bully. And now, just this summer, she came out as gay. She was also hyper-religious, which I think fuels some of this. It's fighting to fit the mismatch with what they are feeling vs what they were taught to believe. For these other folks it can be feeling the pressure in their public life to act a certain way to get or stay ahead while behaving true to their nature behind closed doors.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
I don't think it's as much for racism, or at least it's a far different type of thing.

It's for things that are more engrained in your DNA and you're ashamed of, so it's a type of defense mechanism to not only hide your true nature from people, but from yourself as well.
Click to expand...
Both ethnicity and tribalism are ingrained in DNA. The ONLY reason it is different is that it is socially acceptable in the current day. You can be as racist as you want to be so long as the races you are favoring or disfavoring are the "correct" ones, while both homophobia and child abuse are broadly condemned. At its core, all are the same defense mechanism and it most definitely isn't new. There is a line in Hamlet penned in 1604 that goes "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." which captures the sentiment.

I would even put feminism in that same category. If you were to say that Jews run Hollywood or the media, that would be considered antisemitic. If you said there was a patriarchy, that would be socially acceptable speech.
 
Last edited:
Man… Utah has had a bad string of AGs…

Shurtleff
Swallow
And now Reyes

What a creep. No wonder why Ballard was so confident he could get away with all of his criming.

A new filing in the lawsuit brought by five women accusing Tim Ballard of sexual assault has added an allegation of rape, as well as a host of new assertions — including a startling accusation that Ballard arranged a penthouse with women and cocaine at a private club in downtown Salt Lake City for Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes.


www.sltrib.com

Tim Ballard arranged penthouse for A.G. Sean Reyes with women and cocaine, lawsuit alleges

A new filing in the lawsuit brought by five women accusing Tim Ballard of sexual assault has added an allegation of rape, as well as a host of new assertions — including a startling accusation that Ballard arranged a penthouse with women and cocaine at a private club in downtown Salt Lake City...
www.sltrib.com www.sltrib.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top