Like make an effort to empathize and/or understand others rather than defining them by a single action. Like differentiating between an act and an entire person. Consider the quote you posted:Cliff wrote: Is there really? Like what?
To me, that's a quote about perception, and a cautionary one at that, not just for the person being judged but for those doing the judging.We judge our own character by our best intentions and most noble acts, but we will be judged by our last worst act.
Are noble intentions and acts rendered meaningless and erased by "our last worst act"? Tainted, perhaps, but they are still noble acts and intentions, evidence that there is more to a person than their last worst act.
Isn't scant evidence a reason to limit judgment rather than a reason to render a judgment as harshly definitive as the label "monster"? I think there's a difference between a monstrous act and a monstrous person. The photos would seem to indicate the former but since, as you said, we don't really know Peterson, we aren't in a position to determine he's the latter.We have our opinions/judgements of a person like Adrian Peterson and that's really all we have. I don't know him and I'm assuming nobody here does either. I can't really be 'compassionate' about his past because I honestly don't know how he was *actually* treated as a child. I don't know if he actually regrets what he did (rather than just regretting being caught). I don't know if he intends to change or just be more careful.
All I really have in regards to this incident, that actually proves anything beyond doubt, are pictures of an abused child.
Maybe I shouldn't have poked at this particular hornet's nest.