Exactly Feve, which is why I am saying we shouldn't get all minstrel about it.
"AC - Simply put, you wouldn't know if they were babysitters and also kitten torturers. How would you know??"
Well it was an example. I don't exactly walk around wondering if people have committed crimes to tell you the truth. I'm not ever trusting, nor ever suspicious.
-AC
"no, not 'right', just satisfying"
That's what those kids thought.
Suddenly concepts of right and wrong, morality and immorality take leave of this thread.
If you are saying that administering a beating, is satisfying but not "right" and admit willingness to commit such an act, your mentality isn't much different from the kids who beat the kitten.
"It wouldn't be right to break their faces, obviously. But I still wanna."
Kid 1: Let's batter that kitten.
Kid 2: It wouldn't be right.
Kid 1: So? Satisfies me.
Hmm?
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
[b]Kid 1: Let's batter that kitten.Kid 2: It wouldn't be right.
Kid 1: So? Satisfies me.
Hmm?
-AC [/B]
Thanks. I laughed GOOD for that one. Tempted to put it in my sig...
__Makes the point well, AC, but taken alone it's amusing...
__You're completely right. It's tempting to say: well, there's a social contract, which I respect...and I benefit by it, I participate as it suits me...but those who've broken the law have stepped outside the contract, they've voided it...why not consider them to have served notice that they want to live by anarchy? Why not...do as I wish with them? However, I don't think it would do my "charactor" much good. And if they've served time, then they should have that second chance...
"It would satisfy me to break the faces of a lot of people. Yet I don't. Therein lies the difference."
The point was that while pointing out that it's not right, which is of course the reason why you have a problem with them harming the kitten, you still willingly admit to wanting to break their faces.
You put what's satisfactory over what's ethical and moral, for no reason other than personal, violent satisfaction.
-AC
My point is that those kids wanted to torture a kitten, and did it.
I have wanted to break the faces of numerous people, and I haven't.
While I know it'd be satisfying, I know it's wrong, so I don't go around breaking faces.
I am trying to point out the difference between wanting to do something and actually doing something.
"My point is that those kids wanted to torture a kitten, and did it.
I have wanted to break the faces of numerous people, and I haven't."
My point is that you both put personal satisfaction over what's right.
You would get satisfaction from hurting and punishing someone who had done nothing to you. Just as they did.
While you aren't planning to do anything, the mindset is the same. They probably knew it was wrong too. Didn't matter did it.
-AC
Why don't I pause and admit that I would split a strangers head open for torturing a cat?
Because I wouldn't do it. You're just assuming I would because you might find it hard to believe that not everyone values kittens as much as you. Please don't tell me that I should admit something I wouldn't do.
I'm not a neanderthal. Acting like one of them is almost as bad as being one. I would maybe say to leave it alone, but that would be about it.
Never would I "split their heads wide open" unless they were doing it to someone I care about.
To me, it's a cat. Just a cat.
-AC
oh the hot air in here. somebody open up a window.
ok fine...you would just pass by and say "please dont do that" and whistle off into the sunset. you wouldnt even call the cops?
and just so you know, i WOULD beat the everloving shit out of them and not lose a wink of sleep that or any night after. so long as i wouldnt permanently injure them, i think it would be a valuable educational experience for them.
does that make me a bad person?
"ok fine...you would just pass by and say "please dont do that" and whistle off into the sunset. you wouldnt even call the cops?"
I would give them a sterner warning than "please don't do that" but oh of course I'm going to call the London police force and get them to drive out to some kids just to take them away and let them go for harming a cat (who could get killed by a dog or other cat on the street at any other night anyway), rather than calling them when they're actually needed. Assuming the kids don't run away when they hear the sirens anyway.
That's a no.
"and just so you know, i WOULD beat the everloving shit out of them and not lose a wink of sleep that or any night after. so long as i wouldnt permanently injure them, i think it would be a valuable educational experience for them.
does that make me a bad person?"
I couldn't give a shit to be honest, but my point is that you shouldn't complain about "that kitten done NOTHING to them" if you're willing to "beat the everloving shit" out of humans who did nothing to you.
Slightly (very) hypocritical.
-AC
So if you would not stop them from beating the cat, you are committing a possibly more heinous act.
When I lived in Montreal I stopped a man who was raping a woman on the subway. As unbelievable as it was, more than 40 people didn't raise a hand to help her. If beating the hell outta that guy for what he did was wrong because he did nothing to me, then I am wrong.
And don't say that there is a difference, I hate cats, but cruelty is cruelty, and allowing such cruelty to happen and not having the common sense or nads to do something about it is equally hideous.