Ageism: a question from a shallow and contradictory individual.

The question is as follows:

"If Myra Hindley actually committed the crimes/murders, would you think any differently of her?"

This, in itself, demonstrates a sense of curiosity and due to our past conversations, a form of interrogation and probing within a passionate agenda of mine. However despite this, the sole root of this topic upbringing is due to the practice of ageism on his part. Because he is forty-three years old and I am twenty, this is not a valid-enough reason to consider one's physical growth a solid enough example of knowledge superiority. Superiority, in itself, is an illusion manufactured by the fantasy of the human mind. Here is my answer to his question, as follows:


"Due to my extensive research, I already have a fair enough idea of her personality and intentions in life alone (ignoring the crimes at this point). Since its still debatable/arguable as to whether or not she committed any of the murders herself within the British public and the police overview, it still doesn't change the person she is. Even if she did commit the crimes, it would only demonstrate a further passion she had the guts to partake in, which is more than I can say for those who hide the urge at the back of their minds and adhere themselves to spitting irrational insults directed towards her or her media-shaped personality, with complete disregard to the similarities of ideas of amusement/arousal in their own heads. Please remember I am judging her as a person as one naturally would, not by her debatable choice of career. To judge her by her crimes is an indication of weakness to see the more significant traits. It is not in our power as individuals and existences far from perfection to judge another's nature; pointing out the "flaws" in another will only indicate ignorance and incompetence to see past things that are "frowned upon". That concept alone is another debatable issue, in which people will confuse fact with opinion. Generally I do believe Myra is a very sweet woman despite her wicked nature - and I mean that in a playful and NOT SERIOUS way. Its obvious that, by judging from those who knew her personally and described her as polite, responsible, sweet and caring, that she did not let the "crimes" affect the person she was. Her younger sister, Maureen, did notice a shift in her nature but that was Ian's doing, due to his neglection towards their "relationship". Even if I can imagine her actually committing the crimes, I also find that my general opinion of her does not change or falter." 


In the future, people should consider looking outside of the box should they choose to seek answers for things in disregard for preparation for the outcome. Following my response with the lengthy-value of a short fiction piece, the man in question stated that the topic itself made him very uncomfortable and that "I should know this by now." Well... as far as I'm concerned, I was merely answering a question of his out of honesty and consideration of his curiosity. If the topic really made him uncomfortable beyond further examination of the subject, our  "friendship" would not have been sparked by the argument over Hindley and the "crimes", the unnecessarily labels she obtained via media, and the growth of this topic overtime between us. Let me mention that a few seconds after he asked his main question I took about a mere total of 2-3 minutes to assure him I would answer his question as honestly as I could. He asked why it took me "so long" to respond; and in reference to the short period of a couple of minutes, its obvious how curious and in fact NOT uncomfortable he was, in awaiting the answer to his inquiry. I then told him I was involved with another in-depth conversation detailing a different subject entirely, and although multitasking may prove simple with simple tasks, the skill itself might prove to be a challenge if my mind is to be scattered in different directions within the same time frame. He did point out several times that the Moors murders occurred "before my time and I don't know anything of them"... does this come from a man who bases his short-lived "research" entirely on a quick Wikipedia scroll? Anyone can edit and submit information on that site, therefore it does not prove a reliable source. And is that really a valid statement to base an argument on, alone? I blame the old-fashioned concept of ageism and generation stereotyping on his part. It appears I know more about the murders than he does, and until he was being presented with this fact, he did not make it clear until now that this topic made him "uncomfortable, I should know that by now this is not a favoured subject of interest". If that were true, then why does he choose to pursue my opinions and so determined to seek loopholes to base immature arguments on? I believe he compensated for his lack of argument by criticizing my grammar, and of course with total disregard that he often communicates with me using "txt language", which is far more infuriating to one, than a simple apostrophe misplacement. This in itself, does indicate some sense of insecurity on his part. I believe he was put in his place quite well, which led him to ask if I believed I was a "better" poet than him. I fail to see how this question relates at all, other than to indicate insecurity. I then told him there are different audiences for different styles of art/forms of creativity, and he shouldn't be so shallow as to assume that judging-by-surface is reliable enough to prove itself fact, and not opinion-based as it is.
And there you have it. The egotism of adulthood: following the contradiction and determination to appear superior in all areas. Screw it all.

Love Hessie