Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Can I Borrow a Cup of Sugar?

245

Posts

  • TankHammerTankHammer Atlanta Ghostbuster Atlanta, GARegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I suppose, to answer the OP, I would treat the neighbor civilly but keep a close eye on him/her. The first reasonable suspicion that this person is a danger to anyone else, I will begin to take actions to prevent any harm to anyone and would let the person in question know I was watching them as a deterrent.

    [edit]
    I would got out-of-my-way not to avoid the offender, as I would be more at-ease getting to know them than speculating on what they might be thinking.

    TankHammer on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    trentsteel wrote:
    Because of this, many horrible people often end up having not such a bad time when in institutions like this (including jails).

    Abusive correctional officers, one pair of underwear a week, warm coldcuts and ramen for lunch every day, regular strip and body cavity searches, and rampant antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections sound like so much fun!

    Prisons are not summer camps, and if you honestly believe that they're "not that bad" I invite you to spend a couple of years in one.
    trentsteel wrote:
    I understand the trend right now is not punishment, but rehabilitation.

    You have any numbers regarding the number of prisoners in the US who are in rehabilitative programs? I'd venture a guess that it's a significant minority.
    trentsteel wrote:
    Personally, I don't believe in the Behaviorist standpoint.

    Actually, you do believe in the behaviorist standpoint. You just don't really understand what the behaviorist standpoint is. Behaviorism says that if you want to extinguish an undesired behavior, you punish them or remove privileges. In modern psychology, this is usually combined with a cognitive standpoint, where you help the patient/client develop new cognitive skills (job skills, relationship skills, stress coping mechanisms) for dealing with situations. In correctional systems, the behavioral-cognitive approach translates into a combination punishment-rehabilitation approach. It's all about knowing when to use the carrot and when to use the stick.
    trentsteel wrote:
    I don't know how things are in the states but, up here, they raise a big stink if they don't get internet access or all of the cable channels they want. Last time there was a big uproar some convict was complaining that they only had one board game to play. Up here some people commit crimes so they can go to jail for the winter. Other people never get out of jail for more than a week because they just want to get out to party a bit and then go back. If it was really punishment I don't think they would be so eager to do that.

    Regarding television access, the reasons prisoners get cable TV isn't for their benefit, it's for the correctional officers. TV is a cheap way to help keep prisoners docile; docile prisoners mean safer guards.

    In any case, this stuff is vastly exaggerated by the media. The typical flow for memes like this is: somebody suggests giving inmates limited Internet access for an hour a week as part of a job training system. A local newspaper reports it with a headline like "Prison Gives Inmates Internet Access" and tries to give a "balanced" view by justaposing the positive aspects with some unfounded man-on-the-street interviews of some citizen who cries, "Won't somebody think of the children?" Then a major news outlet recycles the story, but manages to get 10 paragraphs until they mention one time that the Internet access is for an hour a week as part of job training. Then the pundits jump all over it, don't bother mentioning the hour a week or job training bits, make some snide remarks, and all their listeners nods their heads in agreement. Don't be a dittohead.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2007
    In State down in Trenton, there were some patients who had avoided penitentiary sentences-- not for stuff on this level, I guess, since it was not a maximum security facility-- by claiming mental problems that landed them at State indefinitely.

    I think the worst we had were people convicted of manslaughter, and non-repeat sex offenders.

    They weren't bad people. Maybe it's because I was veritably bunking with them, but I couldn't treat them any differently even if I tried. They looked forward to the few times a month we got to hear music or play Monopoly, and they cracked the same jokes about Family Guy and the Simpsons everyone else did.

    I think the one thing that kept me coming back to how similar we were was how similarly we all laughed. It was earnest, and I think that sold me.

    My policy in these situations is considered extremist by most. I believe that it's always proper to give the benefit of the doubt, and always proper to deliver another chance-- but most people consider this unrealistic, and overly sentimental.

    I just remember though, that I wager most rapists had a first kiss which was illegitimate in the same sense our first kiss was illegitimate-- illegitimate here a homonym, and not meaning rape. Murderers spent what amounts to a number that cannot be truly fathomed in a percentile sense committing their crime.

    It is, overly sentimental, and the only "fact" I can really bring to back it up is that good virtue only propagates itself through itself. I don't see why I should ever spit on anyone.

    Oboro on
    words
  • SpeedySwafSpeedySwaf Registered User
    edited January 2007
    I'm not entirely sure how I would react, as every crime a person commits is unique for a number of reasons, but I would like to think I could give the people the benefit of the doubt, and at the very least try to treat them as people.

    This is primarily because if any of us were to, somehow, end up in jail for a serious offense, and then feel regretful and absolutely sorry about it, we would like to have a second chance too.

    SpeedySwaf on
    Deguello wrote:
    Nintendo set up a DS buffet and all the third parties went to the PSP Diner. The Diner came down with a case of botulism and everybody wonders why Nintendo is fat when they return.
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited January 2007
    Jinnigan wrote:
    Consider: you are 22. You commit a crime. You go to prison for 20 years.

    Now you are 42, you don't have any relevant skills to the outside world, and you've been living and breathing with criminals, rapists, murderers, drug-dealers, and the like for two decades.

    Oh yeah, he's going to become a stand-up citizen.
    When you consider how much schooling could be done in twenty years of jail time, and how educated people are less likely to commit violent crimes, this part of the system gets a big fat "needs improvement".

    Aroused Bull on
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    On that Karla creature:

    If I knew who she was and what she did, I'd probably either severely verbally abuse her or hit her. That is one of the most fucked up things I've ever read up on.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    After reading the wiki page on her I would not be able to look at her without a look of absolute disgust or hatred on my face.

    Could someone please briefly summarize the TV edited version of her crimes for me so I don't have to give myself nightmares by reading her wiki page?

    Regina Fong on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    jeepguy wrote:
    After reading the wiki page on her I would not be able to look at her without a look of absolute disgust or hatred on my face.

    Could someone please briefly summarize the TV edited version of her crimes for me so I don't have to give myself nightmares by reading her wiki page?

    She and her psychotic boyfriend raped and murdered multiple girls including her own fifteen year old sister.

    Aroused Bull on
  • Zen VulgarityZen Vulgarity What a lovely day for tea Secret British ThreadRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Salad tossing.

    Zen Vulgarity on
    oVSbgTI.png For more artwork like this, check out Jakub Rozalski's imgur
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    jeepguy wrote:
    After reading the wiki page on her I would not be able to look at her without a look of absolute disgust or hatred on my face.

    Could someone please briefly summarize the TV edited version of her crimes for me so I don't have to give myself nightmares by reading her wiki page?

    She and her psychotic boyfriend raped and murdered multiple girls including her own fifteen year old sister.
    She was, for the duration, being beat and coerced by her husband, though it is contested whether she participated willingly at some points-- rumored videotapes make it a murky area, but the one tape that has actually surfaced seems to paint her more guilty than she plead.

    Regardless, all that the wiki says about the aftermath seems to suggest she has been rehabilitated. If she showed up to my door and asked for a cup of sugar, I cannot think of a single good reason not to give it to her.

    It's not my place to pass judgment on her life, especially for crimes she has reconciled with the state. I think the people in this thread who say they would physically assault her present-day self are cruel, to say the least.

    Oboro on
    words
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I shudder at the amount of abuse or fucked upness it would take for someone to do that to their own sister.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • DeathmongerDeathmonger Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Um, poison her sugar FTW?

    Deathmonger on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Do you consider yourself a better judge than the courts in this matter?

    Aroused Bull on
  • DeathmongerDeathmonger Registered User
    edited February 2007
    You know, when Thoreau was in prison for refusing to pay taxes to support the Mexican American War, Emerson visited him and asked, "Why are you in there?"

    Thoreau responded, "Why are you out there? Jk, it was for the lolz"

    (Maybe it was the other way around . . . for some reason I think Oppenheimer the physicist got off to the Bhagavid Gita at this time, not sure though)

    So what I'm trying to get at is that yes, I'm a higher authority than the courts of any land because I can shoot lasers out of my retinas.

    Deathmonger on
  • Unearthly StewUnearthly Stew Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    It's not my place to pass judgment on her life, especially for crimes she has reconciled with the state. I think the people in this thread who say they would physically assault her present-day self are cruel, to say the least.

    I didn't see anything that lead me to believe her debt was paid. According to the judge that reviewed her, she was still a risk to the public at large, and thus set forth the 8 conditions as a safety net. As far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve the cup of surgar, considering her crimes, and the plea bargain that got her out of some of the punishment. Which, I guess, brings up another question: are people who go through plea bargins really brought to full justice?

    Unearthly Stew on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    It's not my place to pass judgment on her life, especially for crimes she has reconciled with the state. I think the people in this thread who say they would physically assault her present-day self are cruel, to say the least.

    I didn't see anything that lead me to believe her debt was paid. According to the judge that reviewed her, she was still a risk to the public at large, and thus set forth the 8 conditions as a safety net. As far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve the cup of surgar, considering her crimes, and the plea bargain that got her out of some of the punishment. Which, I guess, brings up another question: are people who go through plea bargins really brought to full justice?
    As far as the state goes, yes. And if you read the Wiki, you will see that everyone who actually had qualifications to say so, and reviewed her case, found her no longer a danger to society/psychotic.

    I'm not a judge. It's not my business. It's not my place to pass judgment on anyone, and if all she wanted was a cup of sugar, I feel that I am in no way entitled to think about anything further than, "Hmm, can I spare a cup of sugar?"

    This is my opinion-- I'm not saying it's better or worse than yours. The part I mentioned though about her being found sane and stable by professionals, though, is a fact.

    The OP though asks very heavily that we give our opinions and our reasoning why. My reasoning is as I stated-- I am not a judge. I was not there to witness every event that led to, precipitated during, and followed what the state found her guilty of.

    I have two facts that matter to me-- she was tried, and she was given a sentence reduced by a plea bargain that she, regardless, fulfilled.

    These are the only facts I have and I will not make assumptions past that, and that is how I wish more people would act. Now, if she was my neighbor and kept a yappy little dog that kept me up at nights, I'd probably constantly make wise-cracks when she came to borrow the sugar about not giving it to the dog.

    If the dog also peed on my lawn, well-- then I'd have another fact to take into my consideration when figuring if I was going to give her that cup of sugar. But right now, I have two facts that don't mean a lot to me,

    and an excess of sugar.

    Oboro on
    words
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    are people who go through plea bargins really brought to full justice?

    Are prosecutors who horrendously inflate charges in preparation for the inevitable plea bargin really enacting fair justice?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    It's not my place to pass judgment on her life, especially for crimes she has reconciled with the state. I think the people in this thread who say they would physically assault her present-day self are cruel, to say the least.
    I didn't see anything that lead me to believe her debt was paid. According to the judge that reviewed her, she was still a risk to the public at large, and thus set forth the 8 conditions as a safety net. As far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve the cup of surgar, considering her crimes, and the plea bargain that got her out of some of the punishment. Which, I guess, brings up another question: are people who go through plea bargins really brought to full justice?
    What do you mean by "full justice?"

    A friend of mine was watching after a neglectful mother's kids at one point. They were misbehaving, so he spanked them. The mother decided this was abuse, and prosecuted. He plead out to a lesser charge, and, despite the fact that the kids' grandmother came to testify on his behalf, is now considered a "violent offender," and never allowed to own a gun again, must disclose the fact to any potential employers, etc.

    On the other hand, the guys who commit white collar crime, stealing millions of dollars from thousands of people, ruining countless lives, typically get four months in Club Fed.

    Thanatos on
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Look bitch helped some dude rape and kill her younger sister. Maybe I was being inflammatory when I said I'd hit her or verbally abuse her but I would for damn sure not give her a cup of sugar.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    Look bitch helped some dude rape and kill her younger sister. Maybe I was being inflammatory when I said I'd hit her or verbally abuse her but I would for damn sure not give her a cup of sugar.
    What does this accomplish? Not trying to provoke, but asking you-- why would you do this (or not do it, as the case goes)?

    Oboro on
    words
  • MegaMan001MegaMan001 CRNA Rochester, MNRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    trentsteel wrote:
    Okay, because of my current occupation the following dilemma frequently plagues my mind and I was wondering if you guys could help me out?

    How do you treat someone who is a pedophile/rapist/wife-abuser/multiple-murderer? (ie. Any one, or combination of, these)

    I'm not talking about abuse here, but how to treat them on a day-to-day basis. Some units of the hospital I work at are full of sex offenders. It is very difficult (especially since some are quite charming) to go about a day at work being anything other than pleasant to them. Because of this, many horrible people often end up having not such a bad time when in institutions like this (including jails). Hell, they even have a lot of fun. Because the staff is so pressured to establish a good rapport with the patients, they often end up being very nice to some very bad people. Is this wrong?


    To put it another way: The possibility once arose that Karla Homolka was going to be living in my neighborhood. She has done her time and been let go by the government. I kept wondering what I would do if she came over one day and politely asked me for a cup of sugar? How should I act? Should I be polite and give her the sugar or should I tell her I don't think she deserves to be breathing the same air as me?


    EDIT: If you have an opinion as a Christian/Muslim or whatever I would be interested in hearing that too, even though I am not religious.

    I am currently a nursing student and I deal with the same issues you've been facing. We're taught as nurses that everyone has the common right to respectable, friendly, and safe health care. This is regardless of who they are, what they've done - we are still requird to treat them courteously.

    With that in mind, it's something you have to suck up and just do. If you don't want to treat these people as such or it poses too much of a dilemma for you, then you need to seek other employment. That kind of stress is going to get you no where.

    MegaMan001 on
    I am in the business of saving lives.
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Look bitch helped some dude rape and kill her younger sister. Maybe I was being inflammatory when I said I'd hit her or verbally abuse her but I would for damn sure not give her a cup of sugar.
    What does this accomplish? Not trying to provoke, but asking you-- why would you do this (or not do it, as the case goes)?

    I'm not in the habit of helping or fraternizing with people who kill their sisters. Oh, I'm sorry, help kill and rape their sisters. Frankly, it would accomplish nothing. Except save me sugar.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Look bitch helped some dude rape and kill her younger sister. Maybe I was being inflammatory when I said I'd hit her or verbally abuse her but I would for damn sure not give her a cup of sugar.
    What does this accomplish? Not trying to provoke, but asking you-- why would you do this (or not do it, as the case goes)?

    I'm not in the habit of helping or fraternizing with people who kill their sisters. Oh, I'm sorry, help kill and rape their sisters. Frankly, it would accomplish nothing. Except save me sugar.
    I'd like to say, "I'd give her the sugar, but not you," but I'd be lying then.

    I'd give it to her before you, because given all the facts I have concerning both of you, and making no assumptions, you have proven-- to me-- you are less worth my time or sugar. You are actively contributing, in my opinion, to the cause that she contributed to when she was a different person, and still on the block for murder, and rape, and whatever else.

    Now, she is a woman with a clean slate, and you are a hateful man. You've acknowledged it doesn't do anything other than save you the sugar-- do you really derive satisfaction from kicking someone not when they're down, but after they have gotten to their feet, and you are attempting to push them down again for a debt they already paid?

    Oboro on
    words
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Look bitch helped some dude rape and kill her younger sister. Maybe I was being inflammatory when I said I'd hit her or verbally abuse her but I would for damn sure not give her a cup of sugar.
    What does this accomplish? Not trying to provoke, but asking you-- why would you do this (or not do it, as the case goes)?

    I'm not in the habit of helping or fraternizing with people who kill their sisters. Oh, I'm sorry, help kill and rape their sisters. Frankly, it would accomplish nothing. Except save me sugar.
    I'd like to say, "I'd give her the sugar, but not you," but I'd be lying then.

    I'd give it to her before you, because given all the facts I have concerning both of you, and making no assumptions, you have proven-- to me-- you are less worth my time or sugar. You are actively contributing, in my opinion, to the cause that she contributed to when she was a different person, and still on the block for murder, and rape, and whatever else.

    Now, she is a woman with a clean slate, and you are a hateful man. You've acknowledged it doesn't do anything other than save you the sugar-- do you really derive satisfaction from kicking someone not when they're down, but after they have gotten to their feet, and you are attempting to push them down again for a debt they already paid?

    Well, yes. Because they helped to rape and kill theier younger sister.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Now, she is a woman with a clean slate
    I think we have differing definitions of "clean slate". I would not refer to most people with horrible crimes in their past as having "clean slates".

    Aroused Bull on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    As usual then, I now duck out of this thread acknowledging I cannot alter the hateful thread that runs through our society.

    I've said everything actually backing my opinion, I think, but to remove the need to scour my previous posts for anyone who is interested in why I am being so stubborn and condescending to my fellows here--

    I am operating from a station of facts. I have several facts pertaining to Ms. Homolka, which have been reported to me by a fair and unbiased judiciary committee which tried her, received a plea from her, acted on it, and supervised her orderly fulfillment of the sentence given her.

    I do not know the actual events that transpired, and will never know this. I will never know the events that transpired in Ms. Homolka's life that brought her to seek Bernardo's company as she did, or left her so affected that she acted in the way she did. These are not facts I have, and it is not my place to make over, remake, or refuse to acknowledge the judgment of the fair and unbiased judiciary committee that dealt with her at that time.

    I have one further fact, which is brought to me by the hypothesis-- she has arrived at my front door asking to borrow a cup of sugar. I don't think this is a fair point to take, not entirely, as my own-- but I will. She has arrived to ask for a cup of sugar, and I do not understand what bearing her past has on this cup of sugar. I do not understand that in the slightest.

    I have one fact about several forumers who have posted here-- they have indicated that they-- in their present-day incarnation, which it is unfair to pit against who Ms. Homolka was years ago-- would, in my eyes, mistreat this woman.

    They would hold themselves above the fair and unbiased judiciary committee, and above all other parties involved in the trial, proceedings before, and proceedings after for Ms. Homolka.

    This is the fact they have given me of themselves, and I have already stated the facts I have concerning Ms. Homolka.

    Again, fortunately for my fellow forumers, I do not understand the bearing of a hateful undercurrent on the delivery of sugar-- so you would get it if you asked for it. But rest assured, were Ms. Homolka at the door alongside you, and I needed to find some metric by which to dole out my last cup, the metric is already clear to me.

    Given the information I have, which is more telling of you and more ambiguous for her, granted-- she in my eyes deserves more that last cup of sugar.

    And that's all I have to say about that.

    EDIT: One last point-- some may think it appropriate to argue against my "fair and unbiased judiciary committee." I work with the facts I am given, and nothing more. I give the benefit of the doubt, because I am in no position where my position affords me the right to make assumptions that factor into how I value or judge the lives of others.

    They are a fair and unbiased judiciary committee under the presumption of best possible circumstances and honesty, and that is the single assumption I will ever allow myself to hold.

    Oboro on
    words
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Don't you get it, Oboro? Being mean to bad people is how you prove your own moral worth. Mercy is for people who fraternize with rapists. Your don't fraternize with rapists, do you?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    all white people are racists

    how do i know?

    because 400 years ago america endorsed slavery

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    I'm not a judge. It's not my business. It's not my place to pass judgment on anyone, and if all she wanted was a cup of sugar, I feel that I am in no way entitled to think about anything further than, "Hmm, can I spare a cup of sugar?"

    You know, actually, it is your place to pass judgement. In fact, it's your moral responsibility to judge people. Doesn't mean you have to treat people like shit, doesn't even mean you have to treat them differently,but if you refuse to consider or recognize that maybe someone is an unrepentant killer, then you've failed in your duties as a morally responsible human being. Pretending that everyone is innocent and nobody in history has done anything that you can rightly judge them for does nobody any favors.

    That said, we're not even talking about whether or not you should condemn them to prison. You don't need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is a fucker before you can refuse to be all nice and smiley at them. If OJ Simpson walked up to me and asked me for a favor, I'd tell the bastard to kiss off, because I think it's pretty damned likely that he's a murdering sumbitch. I don't care what the court said.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    I'm not a judge. It's not my business. It's not my place to pass judgment on anyone, and if all she wanted was a cup of sugar, I feel that I am in no way entitled to think about anything further than, "Hmm, can I spare a cup of sugar?"

    You know, actually, it is your place to pass judgement. In fact, it's your moral responsibility to judge people. Doesn't mean you have to treat people like shit, doesn't even mean you have to treat them differently,but if you refuse to consider or recognize that maybe someone is an unrepentant killer, then you've failed in your duties as a morally responsible human being. Pretending that everyone is innocent and nobody in history has done anything that you can rightly judge them for does nobody any favors.

    That said, we're not even talking about whether or not you should condemn them to prison. You don't need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is a fucker before you can refuse to be all nice and smiley at them. If OJ Simpson walked up to me and asked me for a favor, I'd tell the bastard to kiss off, because I think it's pretty damned likely that he's a murdering sumbitch. I don't care what the court said.
    Just to clarify this since it's important--

    I'm not saying I'd be blind to any other facts that cropped up. The entire basis of my point is I do not judge beyond the facts I am given, and I place the judgment of a board who had more facts than me above my own.

    You're absolutely right it's my obligation to judge people, but to do so based on my experiences and facts. If she shows me that she is an unrepentant killer, then I will treat her accordingly.

    But, all of the facts given us-- sparse as they are-- suggest otherwise in this particular example. I'm not preaching being infinitely forgiving, I'm asking people not to make assumptions and not to punish others unnecessarily, and especially for crimes not rendered against them.

    I do disagree with you then, on that point-- OJ Simpson may very well be a murdering bastard but your refusing him a cup of sugar does nothing to change what he did, or likely what he will do-- at the very least, not in a positive sense.

    Tell him, if you need to, "You are a murderer, but I'm willing to give you this sugar anyway because what harm does it really do?"

    Be the bigger man. I don't understand what people here stand to gain by treating others negatively for crimes that did not impact them themselves negatively, and for which they have not the wisdom of experience or benefit of factual knowledge concerning.

    But now I am rehashing, so I'll quiet.

    Oboro on
    words
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    oh hey i am going to be mean to mean people instead of treating them like respectable human beings

    now i am going to be surprised when they're mean to me

    shit

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Be the bigger man. I don't understand what people here stand to gain by treating others negatively for crimes that did not impact them themselves negatively, and for which they have not the wisdom of experience or benefit of factual knowledge concerning.

    Okay, let's say that ol' Stalin rises from the grave. He shambles over to your door, and says, "I murdered tens of millions of people, bwahaha! I am unrepentent, because the power was glorious! Say, I don't have a place to stay, mind if I crash on your couch?"

    Now, it certainly doesn't harm you to provide solace for the guy who's responsible for more deaths than any other man in history, but do you really think it would be unreasonable for someone to tell him to fuck off?

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Be the bigger man. I don't understand what people here stand to gain by treating others negatively for crimes that did not impact them themselves negatively, and for which they have not the wisdom of experience or benefit of factual knowledge concerning.

    Okay, let's say that ol' Stalin rises from the grave. He shambles over to your door, and says, "I murdered tens of millions of people, bwahaha! I am unrepentent, because the power was glorious! Say, I don't have a place to stay, mind if I crash on your couch?"

    Now, it certainly doesn't harm you to provide solace for the guy who's responsible for more deaths than any other man in history, but do you really think it would be unreasonable for someone to tell him to fuck off?
    This is where your analogy falls apart.

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Be the bigger man. I don't understand what people here stand to gain by treating others negatively for crimes that did not impact them themselves negatively, and for which they have not the wisdom of experience or benefit of factual knowledge concerning.

    Okay, let's say that ol' Stalin rises from the grave. He shambles over to your door, and says, "I murdered tens of millions of people, bwahaha! I am unrepentent, because the power was glorious! Say, I don't have a place to stay, mind if I crash on your couch?"

    Now, it certainly doesn't harm you to provide solace for the guy who's responsible for more deaths than any other man in history, but do you really think it would be unreasonable for someone to tell him to fuck off?
    Read my posts. My logic is delineated in whole.

    What you are asking is absolutely tangential, and not something I am ever going to consider. I think it is absolutely reasonable people will adhere to their own belief systems.

    I think though, that their belief systems are outmoded and continue an unending cycle of alienation and hate. We are looking at the extreme of this logic I am speaking out against in this thread, but it's all the same logic. Compassion, by and large, is only propagated by compassion.

    I can't back that up. It's not a fact that science will let me prove. But it's something that I'll say despite weakening my argument, because it is at its heart an assumption.

    But I'll stomach it, because my life has taught me nothing else.

    Oboro on
    words
  • Unearthly StewUnearthly Stew Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    I am operating from a station of facts. I have several facts pertaining to Ms. Homolka, which have been reported to me by a fair and unbiased judiciary committee which tried her, received a plea from her, acted on it, and supervised her orderly fulfillment of the sentence given her.

    First off, as I stated, the judge overhearing her parole decided that Ms. Homolka would still be a risk to the public at large. She did go through the programs, which is admirable and shows that she wants to improve, but to me, the judges decision still stands.
    Oboro wrote:
    I do not know the actual events that transpired, and will never know this. I will never know the events that transpired in Ms. Homolka's life that brought her to seek Bernardo's company as she did, or left her so affected that she acted in the way she did. These are not facts I have, and it is not my place to make over, remake, or refuse to acknowledge the judgment of the fair and unbiased judiciary committee that dealt with her at that time.

    I'm not claiming to either, but the fact remains that she still made these decisions. We do know this: her plea was guilty to the charges against her. I didn't mention this in my first post, my bad. Ms. Homolka is a big girl, and from the looks of it on the wiki page, she was fairly smart: she knew what she was doing when she committed these crimes, yet she did nothing to stop them.
    Oboro wrote:
    I have one further fact, which is brought to me by the hypothesis-- she has arrived at my front door asking to borrow a cup of sugar. I don't think this is a fair point to take, not entirely, as my own-- but I will. She has arrived to ask for a cup of sugar, and I do not understand what bearing her past has on this cup of sugar. I do not understand that in the slightest.

    Taking someone's life is a huge deal to me. I'm under the belief that those who do think they are on a higher plane than other people. As far as I'm concerned, she is plenty capable of getting her own sugar.
    Oboro wrote:
    I have one fact about several forumers who have posted here-- they have indicated that they-- in their present-day incarnation, which it is unfair to pit against who Ms. Homolka was years ago-- would, in my eyes, mistreat this woman.

    Speaking for myself, I said nowhere that I would mistreat her, and I hardly believe not giving her a cup of sugar is the same as calling her lewd names or acts of aggression.
    Oboro wrote:
    They would hold themselves above the fair and unbiased judiciary committee, and above all other parties involved in the trial, proceedings before, and proceedings after for Ms. Homolka.

    I'm not holding myself above the judiciary commitee. Nowhere did I claim vigilante justice, and nowhere did I say they made the wrong decision. However, I still control what I do with my property, and if not giving sugar to someone I believe is undeserving is wrong, I don't want to be right.

    Unearthly Stew on
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Well, in all reality it is my sugar and I am fully in my rights to decide who I want to give it to. That said, if I knew someone helped kill and rape her fifteen year old sister that can let me make some assumptions about this persons character. Do I want my sugar becoming part of some death cookies? As I said, my first comments on this were inflammatory and more of an illustration of my disgust. I would answer the door, listen to her introduction, if she had one, and when she asked tell her no and close the door. Its my sugar and my right to do this.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    People change and the refusal to accept it is a problem destroying familes, relationships, governments, lives, and worlds.

    I don't understand either how you say, "Well, it's just a cup of sugar, so does it really matter if I don't give it to her?"

    You are denying her something based on something she did many years in the past.

    The answer I wish that everyone in this thread had submitted, since I think we are reaching a point where I should point this out, is not "OH YES I WILL GIVE HER SUGAR" but--

    "Well, if she was my neighbor, I'd likely have the knowledge to make that call. As it is though, I don't."

    Oboro on
    words
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Its my cup of sugar and I could just as well give it to the nice lady two houses down who has two kids and didn't help rape and kill her sister.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    That's funny, because neither is Ms. Homolya. Your metric is irrelevant.

    Oh! You used the past-tense, right. You insist on continuing to punish her for that. Well, like you said, it's your choice.

    I support wholeheartedly your right to make that choice, and think that creating an order of sugar-handling preference is a great thing, but I disagree so, so strongly on the idea that she has to be punished forever for what she did once.

    Can we make this a hypothetical? How awesome a neighbor does she have to be to earn your sugar? Is there a point ever where you forgive her?

    Oboro on
    words
  • Unearthly StewUnearthly Stew Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    People change and the refusal to accept it is a problem destroying familes, relationships, governments, lives, and worlds.

    I don't understand either how you say, "Well, it's just a cup of sugar, so does it really matter if I don't give it to her?"

    You are denying her something based on something she did many years in the past.

    The answer I wish that everyone in this thread had submitted, since I think we are reaching a point where I should point this out, is not "OH YES I WILL GIVE HER SUGAR" but--

    "Well, if she was my neighbor, I'd likely have the knowledge to make that call. As it is though, I don't."

    Yes, people can and do change, but no matter how far you go, you can't outrun your past. (Sorry if that sounded really campy, but it's the truth.) Because crimes like these are public record, you'll need to live up to the consequences for the rest of your life. Maybe it wasn't intended that way, but it might as well be part of the punishment.

    Unearthly Stew on
Sign In or Register to comment.