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?

124

Posts

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oro: How can you judge someone but by their actions?
    Why should you choose the actions that are a decade old then, and place wild precedence on them?

    Because the alternative is -random guessing- or -blind faith-?

    Incenjucar on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oro: How can you judge someone but by their actions?
    Why should you choose the actions that are a decade old then, and place wild precedence on them?

    Because the alternative is -random guessing- or -blind faith-?
    No.

    It's called considering her present behavior and actions, using personally-acquired experience and knowledge, and even just the cues you receive while meeting her briefly in the exchange for sugar.

    Care to play again? Read the thread this time.

    Oboro on
    words
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    All I know is the chick raped and killed her sister. And other people. And I also know that she has been living quietly and comftorably and just trying to get by.

    But I don't think she should be doing that in the first place because she raped and killed her sister.

    So therefore, should she come to my door asking for sugar I would say no. Heres why:

    Living quietly and getting by without bothering people and being treated to me does not equal out to raping and killing your own flesh and blood, it does not atone for that act in my eyes. So I say no sugar based on what she did and what shes been doing.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    All I know is the chick raped and killed her sister. And other people. And I also know that she has been living quietly and comftorably and just trying to get by.

    But I don't think she should be doing that in the first place because she raped and killed her sister.
    D&D does not explicitly forbid meta-modding, so I will tell you CrimsonKing that you are not contributing to the thread in any way, I consider it trolling, and I will call a moderator on you if you continue to do so. It is disruptive to what is already a very opinionated and shaky discourse.

    Oboro on
    words
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oro: How can you judge someone but by their actions?
    Why should you choose the actions that are a decade old then, and place wild precedence on them?

    Because the alternative is -random guessing- or -blind faith-?
    No.

    It's called considering her present behavior and actions, using personally-acquired experience and knowledge, and even just the cues you receive while meeting her briefly in the exchange for sugar.

    Care to play again? Read the thread this time.

    There's this thing called acting.

    Maybe you have heard of it.

    Incenjucar on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oro: How can you judge someone but by their actions?
    Why should you choose the actions that are a decade old then, and place wild precedence on them?

    Because the alternative is -random guessing- or -blind faith-?
    No.

    It's called considering her present behavior and actions, using personally-acquired experience and knowledge, and even just the cues you receive while meeting her briefly in the exchange for sugar.

    Care to play again? Read the thread this time.

    There's this thing called acting.

    Maybe you have heard of it.
    There's this thing called 'paranoia.'

    Maybe you have heard of it.

    Or are you willing to acknowledge she is not considerably more likely to act, or to act with an ulterior and despicable motive, post-incarceration, than anyone else you know?

    Oboro on
    words
  • Unearthly StewUnearthly Stew Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I believe that the judicial system does disagree, because of the guidelines they've established. The government has it's doubts, and set those guidlines in place for the exact reason of those doubts.

    I don't believe I'm doing this woman injustice by denying her sugar, and thus is why I wouldn't give it to her. Maybe she is suffering internally, maybe she isn't, at any rate, I don't think sugar is going to quell this suffering. She has other neighbors she can ask, if they don't grant her request of sugar, she is still able, like anyone else in society, to go to the supermarket and pick up her own.
    But what if she commits more crime because you denied her sugar request? awlawl

    Well, then I'd say she wasn't rehabilitated enough to be a working member of society, simple as that.

    Oboro, you've basically boiled this debated down into opinions and moral beliefs, at any rate, I believe that people should live up to their mistakes, and take life like the giant that they believed themselves to be whilst they were committing their crimes. I also believe that people with your moral beliefs are just leaving themselves open to be taken advantage of.

    I'm now going to go play Monopoly, where, if anyone lands on one of my houses asking for a cup of sugar, they too will be turned away, and it will all be in honor of you, Oboro.

    Unearthly Stew on
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    I edited my post by the by.

    Mr. High and Mighty.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oro: How can you judge someone but by their actions?
    Why should you choose the actions that are a decade old then, and place wild precedence on them?

    Because the alternative is -random guessing- or -blind faith-?
    No.

    It's called considering her present behavior and actions, using personally-acquired experience and knowledge, and even just the cues you receive while meeting her briefly in the exchange for sugar.
    I take it you're not suggesting we judge her on her present behaviour and actions alone? They must be weighed against the actions she has committed in the past, which are certainly - and rightfully - very heavy influences on people's perceptions of her.

    Aroused Bull on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oro: How can you judge someone but by their actions?
    Why should you choose the actions that are a decade old then, and place wild precedence on them?

    Because the alternative is -random guessing- or -blind faith-?
    No.

    It's called considering her present behavior and actions, using personally-acquired experience and knowledge, and even just the cues you receive while meeting her briefly in the exchange for sugar.
    I take it you're not suggesting we judge her on her present behaviour and actions alone? They must be weighed against the actions she has committed in the past, which are certainly - and rightfully - very heavy influences on people's perceptions of her.
    I acknowledge that we should consider her past actions, but they should not be an insurmountable barrier. It is necessary, I think, that any person's redemption be reasonably attainable, lest we are murdering characters and not being up-front about it.

    Oboro on
    words
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    So, I weigh her raping and killing her own sister against what she has done and I still say no because I feel she is still a horrible person. No sugar.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    I believe that the judicial system does disagree, because of the guidelines they've established. The government has it's doubts, and set those guidlines in place for the exact reason of those doubts.

    I don't believe I'm doing this woman injustice by denying her sugar, and thus is why I wouldn't give it to her. Maybe she is suffering internally, maybe she isn't, at any rate, I don't think sugar is going to quell this suffering. She has other neighbors she can ask, if they don't grant her request of sugar, she is still able, like anyone else in society, to go to the supermarket and pick up her own.
    But what if she commits more crime because you denied her sugar request? awlawl

    Well, then I'd say she wasn't rehabilitated enough to be a working member of society, simple as that.

    Oboro, you've basically boiled this debated down into opinions and moral beliefs, at any rate, I believe that people should live up to their mistakes, and take life like the giant that they believed themselves to be whilst they were committing their crimes. I also believe that people with your moral beliefs are just leaving themselves open to be taken advantage of.

    I'm now going to go play Monopoly, where, if anyone lands on one of my houses asking for a cup of sugar, they too will be turned away, and it will all be in honor of you, Oboro.
    1) You are making assumptions about what the judicial system intended or believes. They made guidelines. They are guidelines she has to follow, not you, and you are out of line to read into them and say, "Well, the government would approve of my denying her a simple humanitarian request."

    2) You're right. She can buy it just the same as anyone else. The supermarket isn't judging her-- what is your justification for inconveniencing her more than any other citizen, assuming she has reformed? What do you stand to gain from her inconvenience? Why does she not merit a fair and even-handed look as anyone else who comes to your door for sugar?

    Q for you: What does she have to do to elevate herself again to the level of the common individual, in your eyes, if this is attainable? If not, do you acknowledge that you are consciously choosing to cause this woman suffering purely for the sake of causing her suffering, given you have no legal or otherwise obligation to cause that suffering?

    3) I would never argue your other point, but I think you should pay attention to the fact this undue suffering may lead to her committing another crime, as undue suffering may have precipitated the first crimes.

    4) If I am taken advantage of, I accept it. I accept responsibility for my being a forgiving and even-handed individual.

    Oboro on
    words
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    So, I weigh her raping and killing her own sister against what she has done and I still say no because I feel she is still a horrible person. No sugar.
    How heavily do you weigh this? Can you propose a hypothetical where she can redeem her character? If this hypothetical is unreasonable, what is your justification for forever treating this woman worse, and do you not feel that choosing so freely to cause others undue suffering and subpar treatment precipitates and snowballs into further crime and vindictive treatment, if even in small or impossible-to-analyze ways?

    Oboro on
    words
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oro: How can you judge someone but by their actions?
    Why should you choose the actions that are a decade old then, and place wild precedence on them?

    Because the alternative is -random guessing- or -blind faith-?
    No.

    It's called considering her present behavior and actions, using personally-acquired experience and knowledge, and even just the cues you receive while meeting her briefly in the exchange for sugar.

    Care to play again? Read the thread this time.

    There's this thing called acting.

    Maybe you have heard of it.
    There's this thing called 'paranoia.'

    Maybe you have heard of it.

    Or are you willing to acknowledge she is not considerably more likely to act, or to act with an ulterior and despicable motive, post-incarceration, than anyone else you know?

    My father used to hit my mother, until I stopped him, as a child.

    He has come close to striking her, once since, and I had to stop him again, after oh, 15 years.

    Children who torture animals have this tendancy to become serial killers later.

    It's rather basic psychology.

    Someone who has proven capable of an act cannot be fully trusted in that manner ever again. It doesn't mean they'll do it, and it doesn't mean you have to treat them like shit, but they have proven to have a failing, and people do not readily grow out of them.

    Human behavior can be predicted on precedence. Not perfectly, but who we are is, in fact, WHO WE ARE. We do not magically metamorphose by going through the system.

    Personally, I value my life and the lives of my loved ones far too much to put myself or them at risk.

    Incenjucar on
  • SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oro: How can you judge someone but by their actions?
    Why should you choose the actions that are a decade old then, and place wild precedence on them?

    Because the alternative is -random guessing- or -blind faith-?
    No.

    It's called considering her present behavior and actions, using personally-acquired experience and knowledge, and even just the cues you receive while meeting her briefly in the exchange for sugar.

    Care to play again? Read the thread this time.

    There's this thing called acting.

    Maybe you have heard of it.
    There's this thing called 'paranoia.'

    Maybe you have heard of it.

    Or are you willing to acknowledge she is not considerably more likely to act, or to act with an ulterior and despicable motive, post-incarceration, than anyone else you know?

    I believe she is considerably more likely to be acting. Anybody I know could hypothetically commit rape or murder in the future, but the chances of any random one of them actually doing so are extremely small. Our allegedly reformed convict, on the other hand, is much more likely to be putting on an act, or alternatively to be genuine at the moment but relapse at some point in the future. You might claim that this chance (while considerably larger than for a normal citizen) is still quite small, but I disagree. I don't know if statistics on this sort of thing exist, but I've heard of a number of serial killers and other serious felons who outwardly appeared to be good, nice people. I think a level of 'paranoia' in a case like this is perfectly justified.

    Smasher on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    I cannot scientifically back this up but I cannot imagine the risk you bring yourself under in performing a humanitarian action as a faceless individual for an infamous individual of ill repute and history is considerable enough to make half a damn when weighed against the risks normally stacked against you and your loved ones.

    You're right, human behavior can be predicted on precedence. When you start treating people differently because of it, it is discrimination, and is illegal. Probabilities are probabilities to the last, and except when they are nearly assured, they remain probabilities and not sure things that federal governments allow you to alter your treatment of others based upon.

    Oboro on
    words
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    So, I weigh her raping and killing her own sister against what she has done and I still say no because I feel she is still a horrible person. No sugar.
    How heavily do you weigh this? Can you propose a hypothetical where she can redeem her character? If this hypothetical is unreasonable, what is your justification for forever treating this woman worse, and do you not feel that choosing so freely to cause others undue suffering and subpar treatment precipitates and snowballs into further crime and vindictive treatment, if even in small or impossible-to-analyze ways?

    Off the record, maybe if we treat her like the dog shit she is she'll get rid of herself. Thats just my opinion though.

    In debate-land:
    If I found out she started a program out of her own pocket to research the disorders, as there are probably many, that made her do this. Reach out to rape victims, basically give every penny and every waking second of her life into trying to put what she has done behind her. Maybe become a nun, something like that. What she would have to do is try in someone way to replace all that she has taken, a nearly impossible task. However if I knew she was trying earnestly, and not faking it, I might give her the sugar.

    My justification for treating her worse is what she has done since then: lived normally. Versus what she did: killed and raped her sister and many others.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    I cannot scientifically back this up but I cannot imagine the risk you bring yourself under in performing a humanitarian action as a faceless individual for an infamous individual of ill repute and history is considerable enough to make half a damn when weighed against the risks normally stacked against you and your loved ones.

    If they're asking for sugar, they're AT MY HOUSE.

    If they're at my house, I do NOT want them forming an attachment to me in any way shape or form.

    I want them to forget I exist as soon as humanly possible.
    You're right, human behavior can be predicted on precedence. When you start treating people differently because of it, it is discrimination, and is illegal. Probabilities are probabilities to the last, and except when they are nearly assured, they remain probabilities and not sure things that federal governments allow you to alter your treatment of others based upon.

    You have no i-fucking-dea what you're talking about whatsoever.

    Incenjucar on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    Smasher wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oro: How can you judge someone but by their actions?
    Why should you choose the actions that are a decade old then, and place wild precedence on them?

    Because the alternative is -random guessing- or -blind faith-?
    No.

    It's called considering her present behavior and actions, using personally-acquired experience and knowledge, and even just the cues you receive while meeting her briefly in the exchange for sugar.

    Care to play again? Read the thread this time.

    There's this thing called acting.

    Maybe you have heard of it.
    There's this thing called 'paranoia.'

    Maybe you have heard of it.

    Or are you willing to acknowledge she is not considerably more likely to act, or to act with an ulterior and despicable motive, post-incarceration, than anyone else you know?

    I believe she is considerably more likely to be acting. Anybody I know could hypothetically commit rape or murder in the future, but the chances of any random one of them actually doing so are extremely small. Our allegedly reformed convict, on the other hand, is much more likely to be putting on an act, or alternatively to be genuine at the moment but relapse at some point in the future. You might claim that this chance (while considerably larger than for a normal citizen) is still quite small, but I disagree. I don't know if statistics on this sort of thing exist, but I've heard of a number of serial killers and other serious felons who outwardly appeared to be good, nice people. I think a level of 'paranoia' in a case like this is perfectly justified.
    I will concede a level of paranoia is acceptable but I do not understand how it obstructs with the hypothetical given here, which is a faceless humanitarian action which has come to be called "delivering eight ounces of sugar."

    The obstruction of one such small humanitarian action, and the condoning thereof, well I cannot say anything further here without making a slippery slope argument, so I won't.

    A certain level of paranoia is agreed-upon but you are giving her sugar. I believe if she is acting, and if I concede the point to you that she is much more likely to be acting, I am also conceding she has ulterior motives and that she is inevitably going to perform another crime.

    Can you refute that? Why would she act otherwise, unless she was a criminal trying to hide criminal motives?

    If she was acting otherwise, and perhaps acting very nice when in reality she is downtrodden and frustrated, which I will accept is nearly a sure thing, do we hold the acting against her just the same?

    Oboro on
    words
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    I cannot scientifically back this up but I cannot imagine the risk you bring yourself under in performing a humanitarian action as a faceless individual for an infamous individual of ill repute and history is considerable enough to make half a damn when weighed against the risks normally stacked against you and your loved ones.

    If they're asking for sugar, they're AT MY HOUSE.

    If they're at my house, I do NOT want them forming an attachment to me in any way shape or form.

    I want them to forget I exist as soon as humanly possible.
    You're right, human behavior can be predicted on precedence. When you start treating people differently because of it, it is discrimination, and is illegal. Probabilities are probabilities to the last, and except when they are nearly assured, they remain probabilities and not sure things that federal governments allow you to alter your treatment of others based upon.

    You have no i-fucking-dea what you're talking about whatsoever.
    My mental disorders make me, verifiably, about sixteen times more likely to commit a violent crime than someone without them.

    Discriminating against me based on that fact is illegal, unless the disorders actively obstruct me.

    Her rape and murder and sugar do not interact in such a way.

    Oboro on
    words
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    So, I weigh her raping and killing her own sister against what she has done and I still say no because I feel she is still a horrible person. No sugar.
    How heavily do you weigh this? Can you propose a hypothetical where she can redeem her character? If this hypothetical is unreasonable, what is your justification for forever treating this woman worse, and do you not feel that choosing so freely to cause others undue suffering and subpar treatment precipitates and snowballs into further crime and vindictive treatment, if even in small or impossible-to-analyze ways?

    Off the record, maybe if we treat her like the dog shit she is she'll get rid of herself. Thats just my opinion though.

    In debate-land:
    If I found out she started a program out of her own pocket to research the disorders, as there are probably many, that made her do this. Reach out to rape victims, basically give every penny and every waking second of her life into trying to put what she has done behind her. Maybe become a nun, something like that. What she would have to do is try in someone way to replace all that she has taken, a nearly impossible task. However if I knew she was trying earnestly, and not faking it, I might give her the sugar.

    My justification for treating her worse is what she has done since then: lived normally. Versus what she did: killed and raped her sister and many others.
    So you are necessitating that, in addition to the federal punitive system, criminals of such infamy must dedicate years and years of their lives to shallow and narrow-minded benevolent pursuits in order to return to normal life.

    Acknowledged. I accept and respect this opinion, even if it disgusts me.

    Oboro on
    words
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Well if you can call trying her hardest to make up for what she has done and not faking it narrow then, yes. Because if shes faking it shes even worse.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oro: How can you judge someone but by their actions?
    Why should you choose the actions that are a decade old then, and place wild precedence on them?

    Because the alternative is -random guessing- or -blind faith-?
    No.

    It's called considering her present behavior and actions, using personally-acquired experience and knowledge, and even just the cues you receive while meeting her briefly in the exchange for sugar.
    I take it you're not suggesting we judge her on her present behaviour and actions alone? They must be weighed against the actions she has committed in the past, which are certainly - and rightfully - very heavy influences on people's perceptions of her.
    I acknowledge that we should consider her past actions, but they should not be an insurmountable barrier. It is necessary, I think, that any person's redemption be reasonably attainable, lest we are murdering characters and not being up-front about it.
    Not insurmountable, no, but as very, very serious actions they weigh one side of the scale very greatly. It would take a lot for her to right that scale again. The fact that she has served her prison sentence does not mean that she is a better person - remorse and contrition is necessary.
    I would be willing to withhold judgement until such time as she has earned back her place as a decent human being, and especially I am willing to withhold judgement if I am not in possession of all the facts (and I wouldn't be). I would give her the benefit of a doubt, but I wouldn't forget about what she'd done, or let her borrow my kitchen knives, or watch over children.

    Aroused Bull on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    Well if you can call trying her hardest to make up for what she has done and not faking it narrow then, yes. Because if shes faking it shes even worse.
    It's narrow because you are ignoring the great [virtuous] impact one can have on the world around them without opening a foundation or becoming a nun.

    Oboro on
    words
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oro: How can you judge someone but by their actions?
    Why should you choose the actions that are a decade old then, and place wild precedence on them?

    Because the alternative is -random guessing- or -blind faith-?
    No.

    It's called considering her present behavior and actions, using personally-acquired experience and knowledge, and even just the cues you receive while meeting her briefly in the exchange for sugar.
    I take it you're not suggesting we judge her on her present behaviour and actions alone? They must be weighed against the actions she has committed in the past, which are certainly - and rightfully - very heavy influences on people's perceptions of her.
    I acknowledge that we should consider her past actions, but they should not be an insurmountable barrier. It is necessary, I think, that any person's redemption be reasonably attainable, lest we are murdering characters and not being up-front about it.
    Not insurmountable, no, but as very, very serious actions they weigh one side of the scale very greatly. It would take a lot for her to right that scale again. The fact that she has served her prison sentence does not mean that she is a better person - remorse and contrition is necessary.
    I would be willing to withhold judgement until such time as she has earned back her place as a decent human being, and especially I am willing to withhold judgement if I am not in possession of all the facts. I would give her the benefit of a doubt, but I wouldn't forget about what she'd done, or let her borrow my kitchen knives, or watch over children.
    I think this is absolutely reasonable and in line with what I believe. I think, as long as you are affording her the benefit of the doubt despite any of her past actions, you are treating her even-handedly enough.

    Oboro on
    words
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Well if you can call trying her hardest to make up for what she has done and not faking it narrow then, yes. Because if shes faking it shes even worse.
    It's narrow because you are ignoring the great [virtuous] impact one can have on the world around them without opening a foundation or becoming a nun.

    I gave those as examples. Do whatever the hell she feels she has to do, just be honest about it.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • Unearthly StewUnearthly Stew Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    1) You are making assumptions about what the judicial system intended or believes. They made guidelines. They are guidelines she has to follow, not you, and you are out of line to read into them and say, "Well, the government would approve of my denying her a simple humanitarian request."

    Humanitarian request?! Sugar is NOT a staple of human life.
    Oboro wrote:
    2) You're right. She can buy it just the same as anyone else. The supermarket isn't judging her-- what is your justification for inconveniencing her more than any other citizen, assuming she has reformed? What do you stand to gain from her inconvenience? Why does she not merit a fair and even-handed look as anyone else who comes to your door for sugar?

    I am NOT a supermarket, she is NOT my customer. I don't need to care about customer service to her, because she would not be giving me anything for this sugar. The supermarket would be looking after it's assets by selling Ms. Homolka sugar.
    Oboro wrote:
    Q for you: What does she have to do to elevate herself again to the level of the common individual, in your eyes, if this is attainable? If not, do you acknowledge that you are consciously choosing to cause this woman suffering purely for the sake of causing her suffering, given you have no legal or otherwise obligation to cause that suffering?

    Nowhere did I agree that denying her sugar is causing her suffering. This is NOT something you can prove either. I'm not obligated to cause her suffering, nor am I obligated to give her the sugar. Please read my posts about how I view people who commit crimes such as these. (I'll sum it up for you, again: they believe they are bigger than the human race, thus should be able to handle the dissapointments that other people handle just fine.)
    Oboro wrote:
    3) I would never argue your other point, but I think you should pay attention to the fact this undue suffering may lead to her committing another crime, as undue suffering may have precipitated the first crimes.

    Again you claim that this would cause undue suffering, yet I still see no proof of it. I talk of a simple cup of sugar, maybe you're taking it metaphorically to mean something else. I'm not going to physically abuse her, nor will I insult her verbally, I would just deny a request for her to gain some of my property.

    One more NOT just for good measure.

    Unearthly Stew on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oboro wrote:
    I cannot scientifically back this up but I cannot imagine the risk you bring yourself under in performing a humanitarian action as a faceless individual for an infamous individual of ill repute and history is considerable enough to make half a damn when weighed against the risks normally stacked against you and your loved ones.

    If they're asking for sugar, they're AT MY HOUSE.

    If they're at my house, I do NOT want them forming an attachment to me in any way shape or form.

    I want them to forget I exist as soon as humanly possible.
    You're right, human behavior can be predicted on precedence. When you start treating people differently because of it, it is discrimination, and is illegal. Probabilities are probabilities to the last, and except when they are nearly assured, they remain probabilities and not sure things that federal governments allow you to alter your treatment of others based upon.

    You have no i-fucking-dea what you're talking about whatsoever.
    My mental disorders make me, verifiably, about sixteen times more likely to commit a violent crime than someone without them.

    Discriminating against me based on that fact is illegal, unless the disorders actively obstruct me.

    Her rape and murder and sugar do not interact in such a way.

    That's nice. Have you ever even -threatened- anyone or intended to kick the crap out of anyone?

    Sugar: You do not give a rapist/murderer a reason to connect to you. Gratitude is a damned good way to make them want to hang around you.

    And guess what: I can discriminate against you all I want if you're on my goddamn property, and I can flip you off in the street -every single time I see you- if I so desire. I'll happily tell the president to go fuck himself just as easily, and tell him to get the fuck off my lawn unless he has a legal reason to be on it uninvited.

    Incenjucar on
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Because its my house, my sugar, and my not wanting to be physco killed in my own home.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    1) You are making assumptions about what the judicial system intended or believes. They made guidelines. They are guidelines she has to follow, not you, and you are out of line to read into them and say, "Well, the government would approve of my denying her a simple humanitarian request."

    Humanitarian request?! Sugar is NOT a staple of human life.
    Oboro wrote:
    2) You're right. She can buy it just the same as anyone else. The supermarket isn't judging her-- what is your justification for inconveniencing her more than any other citizen, assuming she has reformed? What do you stand to gain from her inconvenience? Why does she not merit a fair and even-handed look as anyone else who comes to your door for sugar?

    I am NOT a supermarket, she is NOT my customer. I don't need to care about customer service to her, because she would not be giving me anything for this sugar. The supermarket would be looking after it's assets by selling Ms. Homolka sugar.
    Oboro wrote:
    Q for you: What does she have to do to elevate herself again to the level of the common individual, in your eyes, if this is attainable? If not, do you acknowledge that you are consciously choosing to cause this woman suffering purely for the sake of causing her suffering, given you have no legal or otherwise obligation to cause that suffering?

    Nowhere did I agree that denying her sugar is causing her suffering. This is NOT something you can prove either. I'm not obligated to cause her suffering, nor am I obligated to give her the sugar. Please read my posts about how I view people who commit crimes such as these. (I'll sum it up for you, again: they believe they are bigger than the human race, thus should be able to handle the dissapointments that other people handle just fine.)
    Oboro wrote:
    3) I would never argue your other point, but I think you should pay attention to the fact this undue suffering may lead to her committing another crime, as undue suffering may have precipitated the first crimes.

    Again you claim that this would cause undue suffering, yet I still see no proof of it. I talk of a simple cup of sugar, maybe you're taking it metaphorically to mean something else. I'm not going to physically abuse her, nor will I insult her verbally, I would just deny a request for her to gain some of my property.

    One more NOT just for good measure.
    You are not giving a cup of sugar fair credit. You are denying her a simple request, and shutting the door on her face. The undue suffering isn't her empty cup of sugar, it's the fact that she did her time and she is still the shit underneath your boot.

    Also, the fulcrum on which my arguments rest is that she is not necessarily the same person she was when she commited the crime-- i.e., she may not still think of herself as the giant figure you think she felt she was.

    I am asking that you stop considering her as she was then being her constant state of being, because I consider holding her to the actions of her past cruel.

    But, given the way you phrased it, I think what you are saying is that her thinking herself so large was an immutable commitment to being shit on.

    I'm tired, and exhausted from dedicating myself so much to this thread. I think that we are seeing more eye-to-eye, and I am sorry for any incendiary comments I made or inflammatory tone I took.

    I'm going to go play World of Warcraft now, and likely will not return to this thread for a while. I am admittedly sort of disgusted with the idea that the opinions I thought many of you were expressing were so prevalent, though now it seems they are not as grievous as I thought.

    If you wish to continue this, it's likely better to PM me than to continue pursuing it in this thread because, yeah, I won't be coming back to it for a bit. ;)

    Also, now that I'm bowing out for the moment, those who were referring to me as "he" or "Mr.", female pronouns and titles are preferred but I respect your right to deny me them should you so choose. ;P

    EDIT: t Incenjuar-- You're right, I'm sorry I deviated from the hypothetical. But your adamant need to call her a rapist/murderer, and refusal to associate with her, is exactly the sort of paranoia I was accusing you of, and what I consider to be too much.

    But again, it's your right to seek such protection and it is verifiably and justifiably sound and actual protection, so I respect the choice.

    Oboro on
    words
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oro: How many chambers does it take for Russian Roulette to be a worthwhile game to play?

    What if the chambers had bombs in them, and your loved ones were around you?

    Incenjucar on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I don't understand why this is so complicated. I strive to treat others with politeness, courtesy and respect. Period.

    Azio on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oro: How many chambers does it take for Russian Roulette to be a worthwhile game to play?

    What if the chambers had bombs in them, and your loved ones were around you?
    I have no idea what this actually means, but that is probably due in part to my head spinning at the moment. PM me a clarification/elaboration instead of a metaphor and I'll continue the discourse with you.

    World of Warcraft! I'm going! Let me go. :(

    Oboro on
    words
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    With regards to this hypothetical sugar, I don't see how refusing her sugar is any safer than giving it to her.

    Aroused Bull on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oboro wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Oro: How many chambers does it take for Russian Roulette to be a worthwhile game to play?

    What if the chambers had bombs in them, and your loved ones were around you?
    I have no idea what this actually means, but that is probably due in part to my head spinning at the moment. PM me a clarification/elaboration instead of a metaphor and I'll continue the discourse with you.

    World of Warcraft! I'm going! Let me go. :(

    Russian Roullete is a game where you put 1-5 bullets in a six-chambered gun aimed at your brain.

    If you do not die after spinning the chambers and pulling the trigger, you win.

    How many bullets and how many chambers is worth playing this sugar game?

    Personally, I have enough risk in my life from driving.

    Incenjucar on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    With regards to this hypothetical sugar, I don't see how refusing her sugar is any safer than giving it to her.

    Because not giving her sugar is mean, and she's killed for less.

    moniker on
  • CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Man fuck sugar, what if the bitch wanted to invite you over for a neighborhood party.

    But you were the only one in the neighborhood who knew who she was.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    moniker wrote:
    With regards to this hypothetical sugar, I don't see how refusing her sugar is any safer than giving it to her.

    Because not giving her sugar is mean, and she's killed for less.

    You could just lie.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Corvus wrote:
    moniker wrote:
    With regards to this hypothetical sugar, I don't see how refusing her sugar is any safer than giving it to her.

    Because not giving her sugar is mean, and she's killed for less.

    You could just lie.

    But what if she could tell? Ooh, man, she'd get really mad then.

    Aroused Bull on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    This is what guard dogs are for.

    Incenjucar on
Sign In or Register to comment.