Astrid’s comment > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
Agree!
Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself!!!
ITS NOT FAKE! TRUST ME I HAVE MEET THE PERSON WHO WROTE THAT BOOK AND THEY SAID ITS BASED ON A TRUE STORY!
It's not a matter of not being able to accept evil so "it has to be fake", it's the fact there are too many inconsistencies and flat-out contradictions to make it believable. I am fully capable of believing a child can survive almost anything but most of the scenes of abuse described would kill a grown man. Bleach and ammonia create a deadly gas which requires immediate medical attention to survive, dog feces contain a whole laundry list of bacteria and harmful substances that require medical services to make sure the person isn’t infected with something deadly, getting stabbed in stomach/heart (depends on which book you read) requires a trip to the ER, but going without food for 10 days I can believe but he would have been severely lacking in energy but I could possibly see it. The real question is if he was denied water and if he was, then he wouldn’t have survived because the average healthy human (not a severely abused child) can survive 3-5 days without water, not 10. See what I mean? The stories he tells (and I believe they really are stories or at least GREATLY exaggerated versions of the truth) don’t match up with known truths. I know there are more but I won’t go into all of the stories he accounts.
Do I believe he was abused? I’m not saying he wasn’t—he could have been or it could all be a desperate cry for attention. What I am saying is what he presents as ‘facts’ don’t match up with reality and what we know about abuse situations. He can’t remember the color of his mother’s eyes or hair but he can go into explicit detail about bruises and blood? I believe true evil is out there and hurts people, but when it hurts people they tend to remember the circumstances in vivid detail (maybe not the encounters but at least the face of their abuser).
Kasie, just because he says it’s based on a true story doesn’t make it factual. It hasn’t been verified and the remaining people alive able to verify the story have conflicting accounts of what really happened, the grandmother and two of the siblings say he’s making up everything while the other corroborates Dave’s story. So who’s telling the truth? Just because Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet doesn’t make his statement true.
Child abuse is a very real crime and it seems this guy might just be telling exaggerated stories of his childhood. Why? To make a quick buck? To satisfy some deep, dark psychological issue? To give hope to others out there? I don’t care what the real reason is; it’d just be nice to know the truth.
It's very close to my own life experiences and I have trouble believing such things happened to me - but they did. I guess if you can't grasp the concept of this abuse being possible, be thankful. It rings true for me.
Can abuse really be called consistent? I would say it is hard to believe because most people have not experienced it, seen it first hand or known someone that has. I am not sure his story is true because I don't know him but it is important to read the views of others. To understand what the world really is.
it's well known that when kids are abused, they often 'split' from the scene - they dissociate. Many kids don't actually remember the abuse, or experience it as though they are watching it happen to themselves, for example. Also, the strongest memories of your mother when she has been abusive towards you aren't going to be her eye colour, it's going to be sights and sounds attached to the strongest emotions. Our brains favour emotional memories over those that aren't so emotional.
It's impossible to piece our childhoods together completely accurately. We can only look back and estimate what happened, not only that, but our grasp on the passing of time is not really fully formed until we are at least 10 years old. It's going to be hard, almost impossible to accurately remember when things happened, how long things took to happen, intimate details.
These are Dave's memories. This is what is imprinted into his mind, what his mind and body chose to remember from his childhood. That is HIS truth. The issue isn't how 'accurate' his memories are. The issue is that it happened to him, and that he survived it, and now he wants to tell his story and no longer be a silent victim.
"I've done a lot of research" means they read that one Dysfunction for Dollars opinion piece that all his haters refer to.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Hoda
(new)
Aug 11, 2012 06:01PM
Agree!
reply
|
flag
Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself!!!
ITS NOT FAKE! TRUST ME I HAVE MEET THE PERSON WHO WROTE THAT BOOK AND THEY SAID ITS BASED ON A TRUE STORY!
It's not a matter of not being able to accept evil so "it has to be fake", it's the fact there are too many inconsistencies and flat-out contradictions to make it believable. I am fully capable of believing a child can survive almost anything but most of the scenes of abuse described would kill a grown man. Bleach and ammonia create a deadly gas which requires immediate medical attention to survive, dog feces contain a whole laundry list of bacteria and harmful substances that require medical services to make sure the person isn’t infected with something deadly, getting stabbed in stomach/heart (depends on which book you read) requires a trip to the ER, but going without food for 10 days I can believe but he would have been severely lacking in energy but I could possibly see it. The real question is if he was denied water and if he was, then he wouldn’t have survived because the average healthy human (not a severely abused child) can survive 3-5 days without water, not 10. See what I mean? The stories he tells (and I believe they really are stories or at least GREATLY exaggerated versions of the truth) don’t match up with known truths. I know there are more but I won’t go into all of the stories he accounts.Do I believe he was abused? I’m not saying he wasn’t—he could have been or it could all be a desperate cry for attention. What I am saying is what he presents as ‘facts’ don’t match up with reality and what we know about abuse situations. He can’t remember the color of his mother’s eyes or hair but he can go into explicit detail about bruises and blood? I believe true evil is out there and hurts people, but when it hurts people they tend to remember the circumstances in vivid detail (maybe not the encounters but at least the face of their abuser).
Kasie, just because he says it’s based on a true story doesn’t make it factual. It hasn’t been verified and the remaining people alive able to verify the story have conflicting accounts of what really happened, the grandmother and two of the siblings say he’s making up everything while the other corroborates Dave’s story. So who’s telling the truth? Just because Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet doesn’t make his statement true.
Child abuse is a very real crime and it seems this guy might just be telling exaggerated stories of his childhood. Why? To make a quick buck? To satisfy some deep, dark psychological issue? To give hope to others out there? I don’t care what the real reason is; it’d just be nice to know the truth.
It's very close to my own life experiences and I have trouble believing such things happened to me - but they did. I guess if you can't grasp the concept of this abuse being possible, be thankful. It rings true for me.
Can abuse really be called consistent? I would say it is hard to believe because most people have not experienced it, seen it first hand or known someone that has. I am not sure his story is true because I don't know him but it is important to read the views of others. To understand what the world really is.
it's well known that when kids are abused, they often 'split' from the scene - they dissociate. Many kids don't actually remember the abuse, or experience it as though they are watching it happen to themselves, for example. Also, the strongest memories of your mother when she has been abusive towards you aren't going to be her eye colour, it's going to be sights and sounds attached to the strongest emotions. Our brains favour emotional memories over those that aren't so emotional. It's impossible to piece our childhoods together completely accurately. We can only look back and estimate what happened, not only that, but our grasp on the passing of time is not really fully formed until we are at least 10 years old. It's going to be hard, almost impossible to accurately remember when things happened, how long things took to happen, intimate details.
These are Dave's memories. This is what is imprinted into his mind, what his mind and body chose to remember from his childhood. That is HIS truth. The issue isn't how 'accurate' his memories are. The issue is that it happened to him, and that he survived it, and now he wants to tell his story and no longer be a silent victim.
"I've done a lot of research" means they read that one Dysfunction for Dollars opinion piece that all his haters refer to.
