Rorschach":2nwvh6pj said:
MikeG.":2nwvh6pj said:
Rorschach, you need to just slow down and take a deep breath. If a mate of yours in a pub said "that fool deserves a bullet between the eyes", how would you react? Would you assume he was talking literally, and that it was only the fear of being caught that stopped him from murdering the said individual, or would you understand immediately that this was a figure of speech?
Now, if you think the former, please ring up the police and report Roger. His surname is easily available, and the post which so offended you is still available here as evidence. Go on, put your morals to the test...ring them and report this crime (as you see it).
Or you could take the rational approach of understanding that using hyperbole is standard every day stuff. You yourself will use a figure of speech, an idiom, a phrasal verb, before your mid morning tea break, I promise you. It serves your purpose, for some reason I can't fathom, to allow different standards for yourself than you do for others with regards to figures of speech, and whatever you think of Roger it doesn't reflect well on you to deliberately mis-represent the nature of someone's words.
I understand hyperbole and I agree, there are things said in conversation that people do not necessarily condone. Had Roger actually said that though, or has he confirmed that he does indeed think this suitable? And not just Roger, others here have said the same. Hyperbole when saying an off the cuff remark is one thing, taking the time to write it out and then confirm it again is another.
I do appreciate your remarks though and trying to bring some sensibility but at the moment I believe you to be wrong and I think those people really do mean it, I hope that isn't the case.
As to my own differing standards, could you be more specific as to where you think I was being hyperbolic? I am not to proud to clarify my statements or retract them where I might have gone too far. I know I am not a perfect moral arbiter, far from it, they are only opinions after all and subject to change.
He may have been agreeing or remarking on one of my posts.
however let ME make one thign absolutely clear - I would actually really and truly do it.
It's clear to me that you and many other readers have never been a victim - and I don't mean a victim of something minor I mean being subjected to the craven depravity of a familial sex offender, or the wilful beatings of a rage fueled parent, or utterly neglected and ignored by a stepmother, or the target of teachers scoring points off you to gain favor with the rest of the class, saying things that in todays world would get them arrested and charged - and many others like burglery and rape.
you can scoff and think this is hyperbole and I truly with with my entire soul wish it was - but it isn't.
I cannot get married, and cannot have children lest the brutal legacy passed from his father to mine, gets passed down again through me, I have seen glimpses of it and it fills me with a fear you cannot imagine.
I KNOW the pain, the destruction and LIFETIME consequences caused by the wilful acts of a destructive human being - and if they are infected with corona or something else and wilfully try to infect another - "destructive human being" is what they are and need to be treated like the virus they carry.
you do not know what it's like to wear my shoes, and the shoes of people who have been subjected to and died from - eithe directly or via suicide - the sick acts of other human beings.
I'm telling you this "too much information" because until you've experienced this - you cannot KNOW the cost, and any viewpoint you have on it is null. Meaningless, less than informed drivel, just as it is about all those who keep saying "we should invade XYZ and sort them out" - ask any solider who's seen real combat how he feels about other people spending the lives of his comrades so casually.
As politely as I can, you are clueless, because if you weren't you'd NEVER say such drivel - a psychologist could spend a lifetime with such people and still only have a vague understanding, because most of it cannot be conveyed in words, just emotion.
If I could plug you into my head and share it with you, you would hide in a corner, begging for me to take it away, you would be almost catatonic - and it NEVER goes away.
You want to talk about "topsy turvey" - lets talk about how parents try to instill in thier children certain behavioural characteristics - like not swearing, or stealing or any number of socially unacceptable things - how do most of them acheive this?
deterrants.
most of us then become meaningful members of society, using these baselines given to us by OUR parents to guide our lives, and further by the guidelines of the local social mores.
if parents are allowed to give WORKING DETERRANTS for thier children, and thus to enact more stringent deterrants when those do not work, why are we not allowed to enact EVEN MORE stringent when THOSE do not work?
rape still happens, sex crimes still happens, murder and a everything else still happens - why are you so willing to continue allow this?
This mindset has far more widespread consequences than just dealing with a few people spitting.
Why are you so willing to protect the lives of those who CHOOSE to perform acts that are outside acceptable society and then PAY £38,000 a year to keep them alive? Sometimes indefinitely.
Maybe society should change to a new system "sponsor a criminal" - let those who want criminals to live, PAY FOR THEM OUT OF THIER OWN POCKETS.
Lets see if we still have overstuffed prisons then, or maybe we will see the true nature of these "protect thier human rights" people - that they are happy for these people to live, JUST AS LONG AS SOMEONE ELSE PAYS FOR IT. Those with more money - after all they can spare it, right? Ask AJBTemple how he feels about being a higher rate taxpayer to pay for the criminals - He's a solicitor (or was) if I recall correctly, I'm sure he's got some interesting views on it.
We have people on in the UK alone who are almost starving and living in conditions of poverty that £38,000 a year would make thier lives and those in thier local communties a veritable paradise - yet you are so willing to rush to spend that money to protect those that would do THEM harm.
The Swiss are actually trying soemthing like this iirc. - Just without the "kill criminals" part.
I'm not saying "kill all criminals" but wilful harm against an innocent? Yeah death, every time, and there are few who've been victims of such acts that would say different.
People always have a choice, and if they CHOOSE to do that, they CHOOSE to accept whatever penalty comes after. - if you can prove they are mentally insane (and I mean properly insane not just faking it) then lock them up and chemically lobotomise them.
Edit: there are species within the animal kingdom that will deliberately kill numbers of their own to protect the larger group, even some of the more evolved animals will LEAVE BEHIND an injured or sick member of the group to protect the welfare of the rest - it's a system that has ensured the survival of thier bloodline and species for tens of millions of years.
KILL them, and use the money to save / protect / enrich the lives of the innocent.
I'm not the one with "topsy turvey" view of the world mate.
clear enough for you?
oh and before you write me off and some whacko sicko - PM eriktheviking, a person well respetced here and ask him for his personal appraisal on me.
Some things in life NEED to be eradicated from humanity - a virus is one - wilful destruction of an innocent is another.
you're not running to "protect the rights of the virus" are you rorshcach? after all - it's a biological entity too.
so YOU DO have your own levels of "what should live and what should die" - they are just different from mine.
eat meat do you?
thought so.