[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Mad SCO Disease

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Wed Jun 30 11:16:48 UTC 2004


On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, AthlonRob wrote:
> Well, I can't tell now if you're being honest or just trying to rile me
> up... I really feel sorry for you if you honestly believe everything
> you've typed out.

Why?  I think I really believe everything I typed out (I can't recall any
particular jokes, but I guess there might have been someone... I make
jokes) and I'm joyful.

> On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 19:52 -0700, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, AthlonRob wrote:
> > > It relieves stress and lets me have fun - sounds constructive to me.
> > Aren't there things that relieve stress and let you have fun that
> > don't also destroy things?  Maybe even some that improve things other
> > than your own mood?
>
> What does target practice destroy?  Some gunpowder and a piece of paper?

What does it create?  Whom does it help besides you?

> Your playing cards requires trees be destroyed, doesn't it?

Actually, no.  The playing cards I use are made from some kind of
petroleum by-product.  I'm sure they'll last hundreds of years if proper
care is taken.  They were a gift.

Except for cribbage with my ex-roommate Paul (who couldn't seem to sit
still for a conversation unless he was doing SOMETHING with his hands), I
mostly only play cards for money.  Believe me, if I could find a way to be
constructive and make a living, I'd do it.

> Many people are violent without any need not being met.  It isn't a lack
> of something they need that causes them to be violent, it is a fucked up
> head.

Not really that many, Rob.  I mean, there are some people with some
congential defects or head injuries that cause them to just sort of flail,
but that's a kind of non-directed violence.  Oh, and there's that guy who
got the railroad spike through his head that turned mean for no reason and
I suppose a few other examples of that sort of thing.

But really, most violent acts are directed and serve a purpose to the
perpetrator.  Some kill for drugs, some for love, some for money... all
kinds of reasons.  But people aren't mindless.  They reason and do things
because they think doing them will cause some good.

> > So, what makes a bad person bad?
>
> Intentionally committing violent acts against innocent people who happen
> to be in the wrong place and have something the person wants makes them
> bad.

What about innocent people that choose to be in the wrong place?  And what
makes innocent people innocent?  If they have something that another
person is willing to get violent to possess, isn't it possible that the
possessor is doing a bad thing by withholding it from the needy?

I mean, if I was standing there with a sandwich and you were freakin'
starving and I refused to hand you the sandwich and you punched me in the
head and took it from my hand, would that make you a bad person and me an
innocent person?

> Inflicting harm on another person for no reason other than a desire to
> harm them makes them bad.

What's the reason for putting people in prison or killing murderers, then?
Isn't that just doing harm for no reason other than the desire to do harm?
It certainly don't make the harm they may have done any less harmful.

I think inflicting harm is bad and I think that doing bad to other people
who do bad isn't good.

> > > There are those who are predisposed to commit crimes (roughly 6% of
> > > males).
> >
> > If we change the law, do we change the percentages?
>
> No, not really.

So no matter what the law is, roughly 6% of males will be predisposed to
break it?

If we made it illegal to have oral sex, don't you think that number would
go way up?

If we made it legal to do absolutely anything you like except stick a hot
poker in your eye, don't you think that number would go way down?

> > Why?  It's my understanding that rape is usually about control and
> > dominance.  These people feel helpless and abuse others in order to
> > satisfy their desire to feel in control.  What can we do to give them
> > that sense of empowerment without the rape?
>
> I can't imagine anything.

How about meaningful relationships and a vocation with purpose?

Rapes aren't committed by happy people.

> It isn't always simply a desire to feel in control of a situation,
> either... it's frequently some kind of a mental desire to have sex with
> those who they can't have sex with.

Um, look below the surface, Rob.  That sex act is about power, not sexual
gratification.

This has been pretty well studied.  Lots of people are interested in the
psychology of rape and they pretty much all agree that it's not about sex.

> > > There *ARE* bad people out there, Jeme - and having a rational
> > > discussion with them is NOT going to stop them at all.  As an
> > > example; the only cured pedophile is a dead pedophile.
> >
> > Ah, but there's a difference between a pedophile and a pedophiliac!
>
> Yes, I'll grant you that...

Good.


> So let me rephrase:  the only cured pedophile or pedophiliac is a dead
> pedophile or pedophiliac.

But we don't have to CURE pedophiles, just help them to not become
pedophiliacs.

> I would have to say the odds that he has never broken the law with a
> minor are pretty damned low...

You'd be wrong.  He's a wonderful man who is sweet and kind and giving to
all people.  The idea of hurting another person makes him ill.

Why would you say otherwise?  Don't you have thoughts that seem outside
your control and upon which you'd never act?

> I would imagine he probably lies to you.

I've never asked him about any of it.  He's never said a word to anyone,
as far as I know, about his interests.  It's just kind of obvious once you
get to know him.

> He sounds like one sick motherfucker.

Well, that's a matter of opinion.  It's a shame that he has to suffer with
the desires he probably has.

> > We don't choose the things we like and the things we don't like.  We
> > don't get out a menu and decide what turns us on or what gets us off.
> > But we have the ability to learn what is appropriate and what is
> > inappropriate and apply that to our lives.
>
> Not everybody has the ability to apply what they know is appropriate to
> their lives, though.

Of course they do.  It's just really hard for some.

Wait... you're talking about people with serious medical conditions.
Surely you're not suggesting that we shoot THEM!

> Not everybody wishes to.  You can't force them to want to, either, no
> matter how hard you or society may try.

I don't want to force anybody to do anything.  I want to create an
environment where just about everybody wants to participate and behave
appropriately and those that don't are also respected.

> > A predeliction does not mean a certainty of abuse.
>
> No more than leaving an unpatched copy of Windows installed on a
> computer attached to the Internet means a certainty of virus infection.

That's so ignorant, I don't rightly know how to respond.

Do you really act on every impulse you have?  Are you really so tame in
your passionate moments that your every whim is totally acceptable
behavior?  You don't filter what you say or do based on the impact it
might have on others?

> > There's no difference between a jailor and a kidnapper.
>
> Oh, but there is.  A kidnapper steals somebody from their lives
> illegally.

Right!  Illegally!  Without the authorization of the state!  This was
exactly you same distinction between the OK kind of killing and the not OK
kind of killing.

Incidentally, this is the only distinction between a policeman and a
terrorist.  It's all a matter of perspective.

> The great vast majority of the US agrees that what a kidnapper does is
> wrong and that a jailer is not a kidnapper.

Have you asked them?  And does that make them right?

> The jailer does not do the actual act of taking the person, either, they
> merely keep them locked up.

OK, so if someone brought me people they'd nabbed off the street and I
kept them in my basement, I wouldn't be charged with kidnapping?

> I have compassion for a lot of people - just not those who commit
> violent crimes.

So your compassion can be legislated!  That's incredible.

If we passed a law that made it illegal to shoot someone who was in the
act of raping another person, would you have no compassion for a person
beaten publicly for committing that offense?

> So, I don't think you answered the implied question - if you're out with
> a woman (assuming you go out with women, I don't know for sure) and a
> man comes and attempts to rape her,

People don't get raped when other people are around.   Sometimes a person
stumbles upon a rape in progress, but I daresay nobody has ever been
attacked and raped while walking in public with another person except in
cases where the rapists were a gang that also beat the living shit out of
the companion or The Authorities.

> are you going to sit there and enjoy the show or say "please mister,
> this isn't really what you want, you're acting out from some deep-rooted
> sociological issues we can work on" or do something to try and stop him?

Why do you think that saying, "Please mister, this isn't really what you
want, you're acting outof some deep-rooted sociological issues we can work
on" is NOT doing something to try and stop him?

> > > What if he wants my car, that I work hard to pay for?  I just give
> > > it to him and then I have no car... I have to walk 30+ miles home...
> > > and he gets a car for not doing a damned thing except a crime?
> > It isn't a crime if you give it to him.
>
> If he threatens me and I give him my car, yes... it is a crime.

I was under the impression that the threat came after the demand.  If you
comply, then there is no threat.  I guess I pictured a slightly different
scenario.

Perhaps if you were more giving, he wouldn't have felt the need to
threaten.

> > If you really need something, Rob, we can talk about it.
>
> Well, I can't afford any SCSI or SMP hardware at the moment.  If I'm not
> mistaken, you have a dual-CPU Pentium Pro server.  Would you ship that
> to me?

You ARE mistaken.  I don't have a dual-CPU Pentium Pro server.  I talked
to Chris Janzen about getting one he had to spare, but somehow the
communication broke down and I assume it went elsewhere.

I can get you a SCSI card if you want one.  I can't afford to ship it,
though.  I also have a few SCA drives, but they're not very big and not
cmopatible with the cards I have unless you can find an adapter.

I did have a regular dual Pentium workstation, but I gave it to Free Geek
about two months ago.  I wish you'd said something.  I hope it didn't just
get recycled.

> If some dude pulls a knife and threatens me with it, yes, I would shoot
> them, center-of-mass.  I don't care what their ideas of what telling
> others what to do means nor really why they're in that position.

So killing somebody isn't bad, but threatening to cut somebody is.  I'm
still fuzzy on that.

But I get your point.  If somebody makes you uncomfortable, you believe
their life is forfeit.

> > And if a third person thinks you did the wrong thing in shooting that
> > guy, he should shoot you?
>
> If he felt threatened, and had a weapon, I'm sure he would.  But I don't
> exactly see how he would feel he was in a position to be hurt.

Oh, so you only think it's OK to shoot somebody if you are personally
threatened?  What about that rape scenario?  Do you really think that if
you are witness to a rape you might be next as soon as the fellow's done?

> > Really, it all comes down to YOU and what YOU want and think is right
> > behavior.  Everybody else is being dumb and should be shot or locked
> > up or something.
>
> Yeah, I feel confident in saying there are things I know are right or
> wrong, and anybody who thinks otherwise is wrong, themselves.

And you are so certain, you will sacrifice other people's lives to prove
it!  Well, that's very noble of you.

Oh, wait.  That's not noble, that's selfish and cowardly and weak.

> Ahhh... so you've now started a conflict with anybody who might want
> anything that you own?

Well, I wouldn't say you STARTED the conflict, but you're perpetuating it.

> Tell me, now, in your opinion... would a man who wishes he had a bicycle
> like yours be justified in shooting you for it?

Absolutely not!  There is no justification for violence.

> > Right, so most of them are not the sort of thing where you're just
> > attacked on the street or something.
>
> Correct, but a third of them, at least, are.  Isn't that a high enough
> number to make you think there's a real threat out there?

I wouldn't agree that it's AT LEAST, a third.  But I would say that a
.033% chance is not too likely and not worth too much consideration.

> Perhaps black men are genetically or environmentally predisposed to
> committing crimes and leading unhealthy lifestyles?

Perhaps.  I think it's probably more to do with the fact that they are
genetically predisposed to anemia and hypertension as well as being
socially predisposed to poverty.

> Should the retirement age and criminal statues be adjusted for black
> men, because they're incapable of dealing with these issues themselves?

Wouldn't it be necessary to move the retirement age down if it were set at
75?  Why, yes, because those pesky white men have a really hard time
living longer than that!  Since they're incapable of dealing with the
issues that cause they're pesky short lifespans by themselves, we bring it
down to allow an average of ten years retirement.

The retirement age is set by white people for the benefit of white people.
Black men should be allowed to collect retirement benefits earlier.

In fact, if you're going to go ahead and have retirement ages and other
such regulatory mumbo-jumbo, it would probably be a good idea to keep
statistics based on race AND class and adjust the age accordingly so that
each person has an equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a life's
hard labor.

I don't think the criminal statutes are the reason for a higher rate of
incarceration for black men over white men in this country.  The reasons
are probably closer tied to racism in white people and the deficit of
colored people in positions of authority and power both legally and
economically.

> Well, if an individual were trying to deprive me of life, liberty, or
> property without due process of law, themselves, I think they're pretty
> clearly stating they don't feel the constitution applies to them.  :-)

Congratulations, you've completely missed the point of political freedom!

I see your little smiley-thing, but I get the impression that's a copout
of some kind and you really do believe what you wrote.

The reason for a declaration of rights (be that the Bill of Rights or the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is to make it clear that certain
values are to be upheld for all people at all times... even those people
who don't understand them or don't even know they exist.

> If you can stop these bad things from happening to good people and make
> sure the bad things only happen to bad people... it seems like a great
> idea to me.

That's not possible by your own definition.  Bad people are people who do
bad things to innocent people.  If bad things only happen to bad people,
then there are no bad people because no bad things were done to innocent
people.

What you're REALLY proposing is to do bad things to bad people AFTER they
do bad things to innocent people.  By what magical process does additional
harm make things better?

All of this neglects the fact that "bad" is totally subjective.  You are
not the Supreme Arbiter of Truth and Justice.  The only behavior you have
any right to modify is your own.

> > Thankfully, it wasn't something from which there is no recovery.
>
> For some, there is no recovery.  Their lives are irreparably changed.

Everything we do irreparably changes our lives.  That's what living is all
about.  Of course, I wouldn't say that experience needs to be "repaired".

> > > The bad-guy in this case very much decided his own fate, the woman
> > > did not.  You're taking away her freedom, he already decided he was
> > > willing to gamble his.
> >
> > Now you're implying that the criminally insane, those who cannot tell
> > right from wrong, are making rational decisions and should pay the
> > consequences that you understand regardless of whether or not they
> > understand them themselves?
>
> Now you're implying because he did something that was wrong, he didn't
> know the difference between right and wrong and was criminally insane?

No, I wasn't.  You were writing about a general case that implies
application to every specific case.  I chose a specific case that does not
imply application to every general case.

> No, there are people out there who do things they know are wrong... they
> just don't care whether they are right or wrong.

Sort of... they do things that they know are wrong with the belief that
they are serving a greater good.  Every act is a compromise of values.

The rapist believes that the action, though harmful to another, will
momentarily relieve his turmoil and that is worth the trouble it causes.

The robber knows that she is depriving another of the use of resources,
but believes that her use is more important.

Are you really incapable of putting yourself in another's shoes?  This
seems elementary to me.

> And yes, I do absolutely believe those who cannot tell right from wrong
> and cannot stop themselves from doing wrong should be incapacitated so
> as to stop them from harming society.

And I do absolutely believe that a society that would choose to
incapacitate people against their will is not worth saving from harm.

> > > That isn't fair.
> >
> > Ha!  Fair?  There is no "fair".  That's total bullshit and you know
> > it.
> >
> > Random carcinoma?  Animal attacks?  Accident?  Negligence?  Disease
> > and death from malnutrition due to poverty?
>
> If we can stop these things, we should.  The 'wrong' in this case can be
> stopped.

No, it can't... it can only be multiplied.

> Why do you lock your bike?  Aren't you keeping it from those who might
> have a need for it when you aren't around to unlock it for them?

I thought I wrote about that, but maybe I just thought about writing it
and decided to keep the email short.

It's an unfortunate compromise I have to make, locking the bike.  I feel
pretty bad every time I do it.  It makes me sad that I cannot trust my
fellows to consult with me to determine who has the greater need of
utility of the bike.  But a culture of desperation and distrust has been
fostered by decades (maybe centuries!) of oppression via that Denial of
Service Attack called property.

> You'll have to elaborate on how property, a possession, is also an act.

You don't see how possession is an act?  Seriously?

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list