Site Meter

UPDATED: Evil 101

May 27, 2013
Share

Screen Shot 2013-05-27 at 2.10.39 AM

UPDATES:  The Pink Flamingo has a feeling this post is going to be updated, several times, today.  R. S. McCain already has updates.  This is a story that is not going to end well, not for Kate Hunt and her father.  It won’t end well if people are honest.  The embedded video to be found on this link is a bit startling.  It shows just what kind of person dear Kate Hunt is.

This story is only going to get worse.  The Pink Flamingo wonders how long it will take for the whole thing to completely unravel?

Twitter Feed

Twitter Feed

ORIGINAL POST: The Pink Flamingo has said, over the years, that evil, and the devil more often than not have a beautiful face and a pleasing continence. We want to look upon the unattractive person as evil, but rush to withhold judgement when someone is young and beautiful.  The old crone of myth is the one who would be burned at the stake for having one too many moles, a few cats, and a really bitchy attitude in life.  She may also have a heart of gold, is kind, and has so many cats because she would never ever consider hurting any living creature.

The truly evil, the Elizabeth Báthorys of life were fairly attractive.  They hid their evil from the world because of their station in life. People don’t want to think of the young and beautiful as anything but lovely and pure.  Those who aren’t attractive are fair game.  We don’t want to think of handsome men as evil.  They can be glib, erudite, self-serving, and cruel, but as long as they are slightly handsome, it takes awhile to figure out that they might not be so beautiful inside.

It is part of the nature of evil.  We like to see evil as dark and twisted, corrupt.  In one of my favorite operas, Rigoletto, he is a jester, tired, sarcastic, brilliant, twisted, physically, but not mentally.  Because he is unattractive, society gives him no value.  He has a beautiful daughter he keeps hidden from the corrupt, young, handsome noblemen of the court.  His less than pure daughter is leading him a merry chase, being seduced by the handsome but abjectly corrupt Duke of Mantua.  Both men survive.  Gilda gives her life to protect the scoundrel her father has put a hit on.  Rigoletto is crushed and the evil duke survives to seduce and betray another day.

Who is the truly evil one?

Evil is a strange concept.  We subscribe to it too frequently and not enough.  From Wikipedia we learn that:

“…Evil is profound immorality. In certain religious contexts evil has been described as a supernatural force.Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its root motives and causes. However elements that are commonly associated with evil involve unbalanced behavior involving expediency, selfishness, ignorance, or neglect….”

I think for the sake of this post we can leave off the religious context of evil and just delve with the ‘common’ elements of evil:  “…expediency, selfishness, ignorance, or neglect…”  I like the work of M. Scott Peck.  Granted, his work can be difficult to read at times, but he pulls no punches.  I have a tendency to look at things in three shades:  black, white, and gray.  Peck sees things more in black and white.  His book, The People of the Lie, is a shattering insight that everyone who is attempting to understand why individuals choose to harm the innocent among us, must read.

“...Peck discusses evil in his book People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil and also in a chapter of The Road Less Traveled. Peck characterizes evil as a malignant type of self-righteousness in which there is an active rather than passive refusal to tolerate imperfection (sin) and its consequent guilt.[ This syndrome results in a projection of evil onto selected specific innocent victims (often children), which is the paradoxical mechanism by which the People of the Lie commit their evil. Peck argues that these people are the most difficult of all to deal with and extremely hard to identify. He describes in some detail several individual cases involving his patients. In one case which Peck considers as the most typical because of its subtlety, he describes Roger, a depressed teenage son of respected well off parents.

In a series of parental decisions justified by often subtle distortions of the truth they exhibit a consistent disregard for their son’s feelings and a consistent willingness to destroy his growth. With false rationality and normality they aggressively refuse to consider that they are in any way responsible for his resultant depression, eventually suggesting his condition must be incurable and genetic.

Some of his conclusions about the psychiatric condition he designates “evil” are derived from his close study of one patient he names Charlene. Although Charlene is not dangerous, she is ultimately unable to have empathy for others in any way. According to Peck, people like her see others as play things or tools to be manipulated for their uses or entertainment. Peck states that these people are rarely seen by psychiatrists and have never been treated successfully.Evil is described by Peck as “militant ignorance”. The original

Judeo-Christian concept of “sin” is as a process that leads us to “miss the mark” and fall short of perfection. Peck argues that while most people are conscious of this at least on some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness. Peck considers those he calls evil to be attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience (through self-deception) and views this as being quite distinct from the apparent absence of conscience evident in sociopathy….”

The only reason I bring up the work of Peck is the fact that I think it is the only way to even begin to comprehend what is going on in Florida.  Let’s begin with Steven Hunt. It is not an attach on his character to reveal the fact that he has a somewhat unsavory record.  There were other arrests.  He was one time a cop, fired from his job for lying.

There are a growing number of us, thanks to the yoeman’s work that R. S. McCain (yes, that R. S. McCain – the one I’m usually complaining about) has been doing. The Pink Flamingo is providing a link to his blog.  Just go from there.  He is doing some excellent work, and has been on this story from the beginning.  I don’t mind admitting that I ignored it until I discovered that Kaitlyn Hunt’s victim was not 15, as her parents had insisted, and she 17 when the ‘romance’ began, but she was well over 18 and the victim was only 14 years old.  That changed the story.  I have been on record, many times, stating that some of the so-called statutory rape charges between a guy who was a few years older than his 16, 17, or even almost 16 year old girl friend, were often unwarranted.  Then again, if there is a larger spread in ages, lock him up. Lock her up.  There is no difference in gender here, just in intent.

We are dealing with some very strange family dynamics.  For this, read in detail, the most recent post by McCain.  It is a very nasty story.  It is also where The Pink Flamingo wants to start using that dreaded “E” word.  I did not think this was originally a tale of ‘evil’.  I do now.  I don’t know what the original intent of the 18 year old young woman was when it came to the 14 year old minor.  I don’t think it was wholesome.  I don’t think she had the best interest the person she said she cared about in mind when she basically picked her up on the steps of the 14 year old’s home and kept her at her home for a weekend of fun and sex.

That’s illegal.  If you stop and check the percentages of 18 year old guys who go at it with 14 year old girls, you would find the numbers are almost shockingly low, no matter what we’re lead to believe.  The average, normal, 18 year old – male or female – knows that anyone under the age of 16 is jail bait.  If they are over the age of 18, anyone basically under 18 is just that – jail bait.  It’s a fact of life, male, female, gay, or lesbian. You don’t have sex with an underage child.

We’ve given her the benefit of the doubt.

But….

When her parents lie about the 14 year old and her age, well, they’re protecting their little darling who just managed to get in over hear head.  Her father is a documented liar.  Does that change the story?  Does the story change when her parents publish the name and age of the 14 year child their adult daughter has molested?

When does it become evil?

Does it become evil when Steve Hunt begins raising tens of thousands of dollars to purchase merchandise about his daughter?

When does it become evil?

Does it become evil after the 14 year old is lied about, her parents exposed, and her future basically threatened?

You know, I think it does.

I think this entire situation reeks of something terribly evil. The Pink Flamingo is not afraid to call it what it is.  It is evil.  It is an evil that seduces and steals the innocence of a child.  It is an evil where well-meaning people embrace the attractive blond young women, and don’t quite want to accept the mixed race child she molested.

What this tale should not be is:

  • Christian v. Atheist
  • Liberal v. Conservative
  • Democrat v. Republican
  • Straight v. Gay

It is good verses evil. Our society should have the maturity and wisdom to understand the difference before that witch hunt gets all emotional and an innocent 14 year old little girls is metaphorically burned at the stake of good intentions.

The road to hell, they say, is paved with good intentions.

If at the very least, Steven Hunt is attempting to raise money to help his daughter, that’s fine.  I’m sure she won’t have any problem paying for her legal team.  She’ll have money left-over to begin her new life.  There will be a book about her story.  She’ll go on numerous talk shows and became a minor celebrity.  They may even make a chick-flick move about her life. She will come out of this financially well off.

Something tells The Pink Flamingo that her father is counting on the court of public opinion bullying the parents of the 14 year old girl to the point where they give up and demand the charges against his little darling be dropped.  There are hundreds of thousands of well-intentioned people who are doing just that, signing petition to let Kate Hunt go free.

The 14 year old victim has no support group.  No one is standing up for her rights.  No one is standing up for the rights of her parents.  No one is raising money for what will be years and years of therapy.

And  – they say Kate Hunt is the victim who needs to be set free?

 

 

Share

12 Comments

  • Jeanette Victoria says:

    Kate will probably get a scholarship from some wealthy homosexual or gay activist group then begin her career as a politician.

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    I don’t think they will make it that far. She’s falling apart, her story is unraveling, quickly.

  • datechguy says:

    As Stacy McCain is at heart an old fashioned reporter I’m not surprised he’s getting to the bottom of this.

    But here is what I’d like to ask. You have been willing to declare this a story about evil. I’m wondering if one or both of these things are true:

    1. The parents decided to play the “homophobia” card and the usual suspects charged like a bull to a red cloth.

    2. People who are looking to normalize sex with children saw this as a chance to “begin a discussion” in such a way to hide actual intent

    From what I’ve seen in the past two years I’m better there is a lot more of the 2nd choice than anyone is willing to admit.

    What do you think?

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    The “homophobia” card, in my humble opinion is red herring, to hide the real pedophilia story. I fear you are correct with the second observation. I also think people are afraid to take a stand because the don’t want to be labeled as something they aren’t. Sad state of affairs.

    SJR

  • Yedda says:

    UPDATED: Evil 101 | The Pink Flamingo Yedda http://claire12233.blogdoon.com/

  • ThePrussian says:

    I’ve been covering this mess over at my blog. What’s striking is that the excuses made by Kate are practically verbatim from _Lolita_.

    http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2013/05/25/the-kaitlyn-hunt-case-may-poison-gay-rights-advocacy-for-decades/#comment-609

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    Interesting!
    Very good blog. Added it to my regular reading.

    SJR

  • koshannahan says:

    In terms of the law, I believe that consensual relations between students both enrolled in high school should be treated differently than non-consensual activity or consensual activity that began when one partner was either pre-high school or graduated from high school. Perhaps still a crime? Yes, but the same felony as a clear predator? Not so much. With that in mind, I was a supporter of Kate’s cause and became active on her Facebook page. Over several days, however, I noticed recurring trends where various site “admins” were deleting discussions of substance. Now, I can see deleting hateful or contrary messages from a support-themed page, but support-oriented discussions about the facts of the case, the nature of the law, sympathy for the other girl, etc. do not rise to that level. It became very apparent that the page was being tailored to appear as though all comments were 100% pro-Kate in the essentially mindless “you’re so awesome I hope you prevail” vein. In my opinion, if you refuse to allow your supporters to have substantive discussions about the issue they are supporting, you are either extremely bad at social media management or clumsily attempting to manipulate public perception.

    I was complimented several times by fellow (non-admin) supporters on the page for my (paraphrased) non-biased, level-headed, well-thought-out comments, commentary, and suggestions. Admins, however, apparently disagreed and consistently deleted not only my posts, but those of others who discussed such things as the law and how it might change, the fact that Kate broke the law as it stands, sympathy for the other family, disappointment at some of Kelley’s (Kate’s mom) responses made public by those against the cause, etc. I find this selective redaction and tailoring technique applied to what I consider substantive supporters to be deceptive and unethical as a social media strategy.

    So, I’ve resigned my active support of the Hunt family. Not because I have changed my mind in believing that consensual high school relationships should be held to a different legal standard than non-consensual or clearly predatory behavior (at least on the first offense), but because I have found the Hunt family and their assistants/agents/representatives to be suppressing open, honest, supportive dialogue. They are, in my experience and opinion, not running an open, honest, inclusive social media campaign.

    Of course, my opinions and experiences don’t have any influence or sway on anything – I’m simply commenting to relate to readers that, if they go to the Free Kate Facebook page, they will find a highly tailored, highly redacted fluff page where not only have all negative comments been erased (again, understandable for a support page), but all substantive discussions and questions not specifically tailored to the Hunt’s desired spin have been redacted, as well.

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    Thank you for your honest comment. It is extremely interesting and in keeping with what we are discovering about them. Please, consider keeping me informed about this, if you don’t mind.

    SJR

  • The Conservative Diva says:

    Thank you for helping to get the truth out about Kate Hunt. I did not know her Dad, a former PO, was FIRED for LYING…WOW! I hope they are forced to give back all the donations that they so wrongfully swindled! Kate is a pedophile who has been busted and needs to do her time!

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    I think we know why the DA is going ahead with the case. Can you imagine having an innocent child thrown in with these people? This is going to hurt the cause of gay kids who truly need love and understanding. These people are worse than bottom feeders.

    SJR

  • Critical Eye says:

    The other unreported part of this tale is that it’s straight out of Eve Ensler’s “Vagina Monologues” –

    “One of the more controversial portions of Ensler’s play is a scene in which a 13-year-old girl is given alcohol and then raped by a 24-year-old woman. In the original play, the 13-year-old says, “… if it was rape, it was a good rape.” The girl then declares that she will “never need to rely on a man.” Following the backlash on Ensler’s romanticized version of child molestation, the “good rape” quote was taken out and the girl became 16-years-old. This lesbian statutory rape continues to be projected as an affirmative experience in the written version and in public performances.”

    http://www.cblpi.org/resources/article.cfm?ID=21

1 Trackback or Pingback


WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera