We live in a world of values: both collective and individual. I may not value what the rest of my community values and still have the the responsibility to know my my own values are. Should is not ever an agreement. What I think I should do and what I think others should do is not an agreement for action. There are communal shoulds that replace those of the individual from time to time.
When in a conversation, even an observation for work or a therapy session, if a person starts stating illnesses and states that medication is needed. Then, the person says that "I need to get it;" it is rational to think that the person would need assistance. It is not rational to think that the statement is an apology for perceived sin. To think so would make the observer insane. If the observer then begins to gossip with everyone about what the speaker has said when the person obviously needed help as private information is being divulged, then it situation turns into a direct actions for public humiliation. It is obvious when someone needs help when they are divulging private information that the person would not ordinarily provide. It is even more obvious when the person in need blatantly states it and starts talking about needing medication that was given to him or her for it.
In a paralleled conversation to one of my own, which is a personal narrative in the above scenario, is one of a diabetic. If a diabetic goes into shock and needs his or her insulin or orange juice to help the situation and a person just observes the situation, then the observer is engaging in murder, especially if the observer thinks that the diabetic owes him or her and apology. This is the plight inherent in the current medical community. Should I or should I not help certain kinds of people?
People have a civic responsibility in America not to murder another person or to stand idly by when another is blatantly murdered. A cry for help or assistance for help is not the one asking "hitting rock bottom." It is the observer that risks jail, institutions, and death. Public statement of help when another looks idly by is a kin to having a video of ruthless police officers beating or murdering another citizen and saying "see if that person had only apologized this wouldn't have happened." In this case, the observer is sociopathic or so arrogant that he or she requires detainment for the illness or crime that has been committed.
When I say that people should know about something, it is not an agreement for my own public humiliation as though I were repenting for asking for help or my own illness. I have never apologized for an illness or for the effects of an illness. I don't expect that I will in the future either. I don't run around telling others that they need to apologize to me for their illnesses. I expect that if someone asks for help in a situation that I will work to do what I can to help another person; it may even be a response prompting to get the person's medication.
Should is a values word and not agreement for informational dissemination. The spreading of data or public use of data that so obviously is a cry for help is a form of stalking. It is, in fact, cyber-stalking. If it is done in an attempt to remove the person from employment, then the issue is one of dehumanizing enslavement. The tattling of another is criminal and mainly exposes the hatred of the observer. It shows that person's arrogance, lack of compassion, and merciless interaction with other people in the world.
The power of should is in the justice system of the United States. It is in the hands of the citizens to help those whom have be publicly persecuted by adults tattling on others under the guise of "the greater good." It is, indeed, unethical to disseminate personal points of view as fact as the facts don't change reality. One may think that a fact about another person's medical history is one of public concern. Usually, it is when taken out of context, broken into sound bites, and claimed a speaker has done something that they haven't actually done or said
I will state again. I don't apologize to those who demand an apology. If someone thinks that I or anyone has apologized for some perceived misdeed, then it is the listener or the observer who has decided in that person's heart and mind that he or she is owed an apology. No one is owed an apology. I don't think I should. So, I don't. Even those who murder others in this society are not required to apologize. I may think that they should; however, they don't have to. To claim one it's real and is similar to looting another person's freedom. The person spreading around mal-attained recordings and documentation belonging to another person is liable, especially when it is an attempt to harm the speaker intentionally.
Ultimately, haters will hate. However, they are prosecutable; I think they should be prosecuted. Those whom turn in other people for committing crimes that they have never done should be arrested for the false accusation. When the police are called or involved, it has immediately become, at very least, a civil issue for the courts. If someone decides to call the police because he or she knows that another person doesn't have car insurance, which is not a part of that person's position at a body shop, then the individual who made the call should be arrested. Tattling, and being wrong, is at very least a civil suit.
Trying to teach someone else humility through humiliation is criminal. Perhaps, people should think about it before illegally attaining information and spreading it around.
