Responding to Closed Thread

As has become a pattern with this poster, First Amendment over on Brooke's blog has made a misleading post just before Brooke has closed the thread. He/she has an amazing ability to sense just when it's about to close. So, since I did not get my rebuttal I will respond here, for my own satisfaction.

FA posted this:
"I will give your psychological assessment as much weight as I give Dr. Beall’s, who claims just the opposite–that all FLDS women and children are suffering from PTSD. He knows this even without examining them, just as you know they are actually tough little cookies who can be kidnapped at gunpoint and shipped to a concentration camp, no harm done."

In response to this from me:
"I notice, FA, you ignore the part where I said that the FLDS mothers and children don’t actually seem that fragile. But then, you seem to select your “reality” quite carefully."

Which was in response to this from him/her:

"Rebeckah says: If the FLDS are so fragile that they cannot adapt to changes then the parents need to look at what they are doing wrong. It is part of the job of parenting to try and teach your children to handle change, crisis and trauma.

—
This statement is so extraordinary that I have to copy it and highlight it. It’s right in line with a CPS apologist a while back, who claimed the ranch children had traumatized the CPS workers."

Notice how he/she starts by claiming the need to point out some implied fuzzy thinking on my part which is exemplified by a careful excerpt of my original comment. (I'll include it in its entirety at the end of this post.)

My response was pointing out that my argument -- the one he/she finds so extraordinary -- is rhetorical, that I do NOT, in fact, feel that that women and children of the YFZ are traumatized and scarred for life by their experiences with CPS and Law Enforcement. (Please allow me to point out as well that I am NOT a blind CPS supporter. I believe it has too much power as an organization and not enough oversight.)

So, how does FA respond to me observation that my comment was essentially rhetorical? He/she turns it into a snitty remark about me not being an expert. Now I made no attempt to convince anyone to believe according to my opinions. I have NEVER claimed any expertise other than that of a human being who has had encounters with CPS in the past myself. (Oddly enough, both my son and I survived and neither of us were traumatized. I guess we just didn't know how traumatic it was.)

Okay, now, for your reading delight, here is my first comment in this chain:

"MA, I stand by what I said. If the FLDS are so fragile that they cannot adapt to changes then the parents need to look at what they are doing wrong. It is part of the job of parenting to try and teach your children to handle change, crisis and trauma.

To be honest, what I have read of the way some of the mothers have handled their children’s stress is excellent — like the mother who bought some parakeets for her daughters to care for. Her instincts were spot on. However it rather makes your melodrama a bit — well — melodramatic. Perhaps you should allow the mothers and children to tell us personally of their trauma. You appear to be postulating harm that you can’t back up."

I trust that it, in its entirety, shows that the intent of my comment is nothing like what FA is attempting to make it. However, I welcome feedback. If my comment is really unclear, please feel free to tell me how you interpreted it.