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.
Maybe. But unless you're a teen age girl, theres probably no reason to really be scared of Homolka. The whole safety theoretical argument is a bit of a moot point really.
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.
Bullshit! You're putting words in my mouth again. I went out of my way to state that I would deny the request, but not be an asshat about it. This may seem harsh, but I want this cleared up. A person isn't inherently evil for denying someone access to their property.
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.
Again, you assume that I'm going to kick her in the gut, and slam the door in her face. I don't think I'm above her because I'm denying her sugar. I'm not thinking "I'm so much better than this person, because I've got sugar, and she doesn't."
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.
May your lewtz be epic and many.
Unearthly Stew on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited February 2007
Who the fuck goes to the next door neighbor to ask for a cup of sugar? Is this the 50s or something?
Props to Obs for sticking to her guns. You make a better christian than the christians. Imagine if they all actually followed a philosophy of forgiveness rather than presuming to know who god hates.
That said I would still have a hard time givin' the sugar.
An earlier comment was made about her "acting normally" and I think this is the crux of it.
If I were to wake up one morning and have a memory come flooding back about a psychotic episode the night before where I did the things that she did I assure you no court would be needed as I would be dead within the hour.
The very act of "going on as normal" after a deed that horrific is offensive to me on a viceral level. In the abstract the idea that no one is beyond redemption and time served = debt paid in full sounds fine but there are some things where just doesen't sit right. Theft, murder in the heat of passion, these are things that many of us feel ourselves capable of in a fit of rage or a moment of weakness. But for someone to take pleasure in what is nothing less than physical and psychological torture, not to mention the ultimate anguish caused by such an unspeakable betrayal,.... no this goes well beyond the pale.
My abhorrence stems from the difference in her behavior versus what I think I would do in her position, which is either spend the rest of my life trying to make up for something that can never be undone or write an apology letter and then put a round through my brainstem.
ALocksly on
Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
0
Options
SmasherStarting to get dizzyRegistered Userregular
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?
As you indicated, I don't believe giving or not giving her the sugar is likely to have an effect on whether or not she commits crimes in the future. I'll explain what I was getting at.
Personally I would rather not help a bad person (as in the present and not just the past) than help them, assuming help is something like loaning sugar as opposed to psychiatric care. For life-threatening injuries and so forth I would make an exception, since I'm against the death penalty and refusing to help her would be indirectly contributing to her death. In general though a bad person can go fuck him or herself since they'd just as soon fuck me over if they could. Given what I know of you there's a good chance you oppose this point of view. If that's the case we're going to have to agree to disagree.
The fundamental issue in my mind is: how do we know if she's really good or bad? Naturally there's no easy way to tell, and that seems to be (if I'm understanding you correctly) where you disagree with most of the other posters in the thread. You're inclined to view the situation from the perspective of the honestly reformed person, while many others tend to see it from the point of view of the neighbor of a potentially unrepentant murderer.
It really is a shitty situation for her if she's reformed, and while one could say that a "previous version" of her brought it on herself she'd still have my sympathy. If I had some way of knowing that she truly was good now I would give her the sugar. I would still expect her to give special effort to make up for her crimes in whatever way she could, since jail alone can't completely make up for something of that degree, but other than that I would do my part to give her the chance to live out as normal a life as she could including treating her like a neighbor.
Unfortunately we don't have the means to magically know this, and that's where our previous discussion comes into play. She would have to prove to me (as much as realistically possible) that she was a good person. For a normal person this wouldn't be difficult, as I would be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, as we established before, there is a reasonably significant possibility that she is merely pretending to be reformed. Thus, given my above position on bad people I think it's reasonable to be unwilling to give her the sugar until she's done a significant amount to convince me (among everyone else) that she really isn't. While you established in the hypothetical that she'd been around for a while, I don't think we established a time frame; for me, I think it would be at least several years before she reached that point. Having never been in the situation I can't really say for sure.
Posts
Maybe. But unless you're a teen age girl, theres probably no reason to really be scared of Homolka. The whole safety theoretical argument is a bit of a moot point really.
Bullshit! You're putting words in my mouth again. I went out of my way to state that I would deny the request, but not be an asshat about it. This may seem harsh, but I want this cleared up. A person isn't inherently evil for denying someone access to their property.
Again, you assume that I'm going to kick her in the gut, and slam the door in her face. I don't think I'm above her because I'm denying her sugar. I'm not thinking "I'm so much better than this person, because I've got sugar, and she doesn't."
Agreed.
May your lewtz be epic and many.
Hush or you aren't going to get a slice of Aunt B's pie once it finishes cooling on the sill.
Yeah, well, unless it's pumpkin, you can have your pie. I'll be over here eating my pumpkin pie.
That said I would still have a hard time givin' the sugar.
An earlier comment was made about her "acting normally" and I think this is the crux of it.
If I were to wake up one morning and have a memory come flooding back about a psychotic episode the night before where I did the things that she did I assure you no court would be needed as I would be dead within the hour.
The very act of "going on as normal" after a deed that horrific is offensive to me on a viceral level. In the abstract the idea that no one is beyond redemption and time served = debt paid in full sounds fine but there are some things where just doesen't sit right. Theft, murder in the heat of passion, these are things that many of us feel ourselves capable of in a fit of rage or a moment of weakness. But for someone to take pleasure in what is nothing less than physical and psychological torture, not to mention the ultimate anguish caused by such an unspeakable betrayal,.... no this goes well beyond the pale.
My abhorrence stems from the difference in her behavior versus what I think I would do in her position, which is either spend the rest of my life trying to make up for something that can never be undone or write an apology letter and then put a round through my brainstem.
Personally I would rather not help a bad person (as in the present and not just the past) than help them, assuming help is something like loaning sugar as opposed to psychiatric care. For life-threatening injuries and so forth I would make an exception, since I'm against the death penalty and refusing to help her would be indirectly contributing to her death. In general though a bad person can go fuck him or herself since they'd just as soon fuck me over if they could. Given what I know of you there's a good chance you oppose this point of view. If that's the case we're going to have to agree to disagree.
The fundamental issue in my mind is: how do we know if she's really good or bad? Naturally there's no easy way to tell, and that seems to be (if I'm understanding you correctly) where you disagree with most of the other posters in the thread. You're inclined to view the situation from the perspective of the honestly reformed person, while many others tend to see it from the point of view of the neighbor of a potentially unrepentant murderer.
It really is a shitty situation for her if she's reformed, and while one could say that a "previous version" of her brought it on herself she'd still have my sympathy. If I had some way of knowing that she truly was good now I would give her the sugar. I would still expect her to give special effort to make up for her crimes in whatever way she could, since jail alone can't completely make up for something of that degree, but other than that I would do my part to give her the chance to live out as normal a life as she could including treating her like a neighbor.
Unfortunately we don't have the means to magically know this, and that's where our previous discussion comes into play. She would have to prove to me (as much as realistically possible) that she was a good person. For a normal person this wouldn't be difficult, as I would be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, as we established before, there is a reasonably significant possibility that she is merely pretending to be reformed. Thus, given my above position on bad people I think it's reasonable to be unwilling to give her the sugar until she's done a significant amount to convince me (among everyone else) that she really isn't. While you established in the hypothetical that she'd been around for a while, I don't think we established a time frame; for me, I think it would be at least several years before she reached that point. Having never been in the situation I can't really say for sure.