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

AthlonRob AthlonRob at axpr.net
Wed Jun 30 16:47:42 UTC 2004


On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 04:16 -0700, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> What does it create?  Whom does it help besides you?

Why does recreation need to have a positive impact on anybody besides
me?  If I'm a happier person, won't those around me be happier, too?

> > 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.

Ah, that gift probably required more damage to the environment than you
realize.  You should be ashamed.

> 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?

Yes... that would make me a bad person and you an innocent person.  In
this day and age of unemployment benefits and welfare (entire
communities surviving on welfare - how fucked up is that?), there's no
excuse for starving.

> 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.

Incapacitation and deterrence.

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

I'm sorry, Jeme, I should have specified - most people I speak with
understand there are certain assumptions you make in a conversation.  No
matter what the law is, within reason, roughly 6% of males will be
predisposed to break it.

> How about meaningful relationships and a vocation with purpose?
> 
> Rapes aren't committed by happy people.

What kind of a relationship, if I may ask?

And seemingly happy people do commit rapes.

> 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.

So you just assume he has never abused a child?

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

Incapacitation of violent people... if we can't cure them, can't stop
them from offending, then sure.  Shoot 'em.

> 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?

Because what you are doing is not going to ever have an effect of
stopping the attack.

> 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.

Ah, I wonder what happened to it.

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

In many cases, yes.

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

Uncomfortable to the point of feeling threatened, yes.

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

But I thought that was exactly what you said?

I quote:

> But it's pretty easy to argue that, in the case of what you'd call
> "robbery", you started the conflict by asserting control over the
> resources in the first place.

> 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.

I think the odds are a bit higher than that, as I read the statistics.
Probably by at least two orders of magnitude.

And I think such things are worth consideration.

> 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.

Wouldn't it be best to base a retirement age on the individual person?
Oh, wait, that's what we have now, isn't it?  I can't think of many
people under the age of seventy today I know who worked past the age of
55.

Choose your job wisely, work hard at it, and you'll have more than a ten
year retirement.

> 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.

But aren't these white people in authority creating criminal statutes
that target the black people?  How else would they be forcing them to be
convicted of crimes?

> 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?

Incapacitation and deterrence.

> 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.

But aren't don't we all modify the behavior of everybody we contact, in
some small way?

Who are you to decide whose behavior we have the right to modify and how
much we have the right to modify it?  The lock on your bike likely
modified somebody's behavior when they went to steal it from you - who
are you to have done that?

It seems to me you're imposing arbitrary limits here that don't fit in
with your idealogical beliefs.

> 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".

Ahh, I see.  So rape is just another experience that helps build
character?

> 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.

No, not a greater good.  A personal good, perhaps... but even that is
arguable.

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

No, they do not care about or are pleased by the trouble it causes
somebody else.  It isn't that they think their needs are more important,
it is that they don't care what anybody else's needs are.

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

No, the robber wants the thing and doesn't care whose use is more
important.

> 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.

So, in other words, you lock up your bike because you know if you don't,
somebody will steal it.  And you assume you have the right to decide if
a stranger should take the time to consult with you about who has the
greater need for the bike, when you obviously aren't even using the bike
at the time?  I'm sure if they took the bike, they had some need they
felt was more important than your need for the bike, right?  Who are you
to just assume they are wrong?

That seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Neither of us is going to convince the other one of anything.  Of this I
am now quite sure.  You live with your heads in the clouds, you're an
idealist of the worst kind.  You see no problems here on Earth.  It
would be great if you and your followers could book a ticket on a space
shuttle to the the Zenon system where you could set up your Utopian
paradise and show us all how wrong we were.

I'm a realist, though.  I know there are bad people out there.  I know
crime is a problem and giving everybody a proverbial hug isn't going to
solve it.  I know stiffer penalties - far stiffer than what the public
would be willing to stomach today - would put a very significant dent
into it.  I believe in such a thing as right and wrong, where you simply
see different perspectives.

I think I get what you're saying - you're a lunatic.  I'm sure you and
Karl would have made quite the couple.

-- 
Rob                                |  If not safe,
   Jabber: athlonrob at axpr.net   |    one can never be free.






More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list