What's the deal with KPO?
POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Friday, June 7, 2013 19:26
VIEWED: 22000
PAGE 10 of 12
AuRaptor has never personally engaged in or committed torture, murder, or genocide. He happens to support a few things I consider distasteful, maybe even wrong, like the war, and waterboarding, yet he does not consider those things torture or murder. I know plenty of otherwise okay moral people who also support those tactics because they believe it keeps America safe, and as selfish and counterproductive as that sounds, they rate America's safety higher than American values. Similarly I know he is against abortion and has said sexist things in the past, yet many people do that and they aren't murderers, and they aren't rapists, and they don't bomb abortion clinics, and as far as I know AuRaptor has done none of those things.
As such I can reasonably be sure that he is probably not a monster, rather he's just another right wing voter.
Calling him any of these things - torturer, murderer, genocider, or rapist, is simply not accurate and are all uncalled for. If AuRaptor is all those things just for supporting one group and their political beliefs and actions, then so am I, so are you, so is everyone. I support gay rights, and gay adoption, and I question the application of some statutory age of consent laws, and by right wing standards and values that means I support rape because they think gay = pedophile. So, am I a rapist?
We have to draw the line somewhere. We can only judge people on what they have actually done, not damning them and their beliefs by association. And much like other members on the board, the only thing AURaptor has DONE is vote, which, in my opinion, is the same as doing nothing. Doesn't mean a clear conscience or that voters are absolved of responsibility, but it also doesn't mean monster.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, sweetie pie honeykins, the thing I'm reacting to is you saying that Rappy deserves to be called a rapist. That's a specific word that you very clearly and specifically applied.
If you did not mean this, please clarify.
If you did mean this, you are really off your gourd to not understand my very clear explanation of the misuse of the term.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have claeified, now for roughly the fifth time, that rappy is not a rapist (as far as I know). How many times do I have to say that for it to sink in? What I said, very clearly in my original wording, was that he deserved to be called that, or worse. Now, if I had said flatly that he was a rapist... or maybe even if he "deerved to be" called a rapist, then maybe you would have a point. Once I added "or worse" to my sentence, it should have been clear from the very start that I wasn't using "rape" in its literal sense, I was suggesting that there are moral transgressions "as bad as" or "worse than" rape. I already made that point, too, several times, but apparenlty that wasn't acceptable to you either!
We could have perhaps gone into a discussion of moral transgressions- Can they be comapred? If so, what is worse? How "shared" is "shared responsibility"? But instead, you chose to exercise your outrage and disappointment. And, to this moment, I'm not sure that YOU understand why, because I the hell sure don't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
AuRaptor has never tortured, murderered, or genocided himself.
Not that we're in a court of law, but note that there are different charges for those who actually do a crime than for those who abet. I believe it is somewhat important to discover the level of awareness in a perp to decide on the level of the crime and the punishment.
Suppose I purposely replace a pizza joint's parmesan cheese with rat poison and lots of patrons eat it and die. I am a mass murderer and likely go to the chair.
Suppose I am a dambass clueless waitress who picks up the wrong box when refilling the shakers. I am guilty of manslaughter (um, right?) and my spend some time in jail. Maybe you'd call me a killer, but not a murderer.
Suppose my son is emotionally unstable but I just love him too much to believe that he's so bad off, even when he starts talking about how much he hates the place where he waits tables and all those evil damned customers. And then he does the rat poison thing. What am I guilty of for ignoring the signs? Am I a mass murderer too?
ETA: sorry, not clear. I mean to agree with what you're saying Byte.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, the thing I will never understand is how you can say someone deserves to be called something which they are not.
Does not compute.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, MAL4, this is an entirely different discussion, and one that I invited several times. NOW you want to change the discussion??? Fine!
Quote:It doesn't compute because I didn't say it. What if I has said- of a big Ponzi scheme operator, for example- He deserves to be called a robber, or worse. Now, robbery is a violent crime, embezzling not so much. But an embezzler can do far more damage to far more people than a simple robber. In this less emotional setting, does this still seem uninterpretable?
Sig, the thing I will never understand is how you can say someone deserves to be called something which they are not. Does not compute.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You have a social responsibility, and to reneg on social responsibility is... bad. It allows bad things to happen. As I said in the other thread, the breadmaker in the town of Dachau is just as guilty in some ways as the people who manned the ovens of the concentration camps.
But to say that the breadmaker is themselves a murderer because of this is a strange assertion. I understand how our laws work, but even our laws wouldn't charge the mother of the Sandyhook shooter for involuntary manslaughter, because again, there are limits of culpability, and limits as to who we can call a murderer.
I am frustrated as hell with the average American voter because I see them as perpetuating some truly TERRIBLE things no matter which party they voted for. And yet I do not think of them as monsters. The monsters are the people who actually commit the crime.
EDIT: Oops, saw your edit Mal4Prez. Yes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What if I has said- of a big Ponzi scheme operator, for example- He deserves to be called a robber, or worse. Now, robbery is a violent crime, embezzling not so much. But an embezzler can do far more damage to far more people than a simple robber. In this less emotional setting, does this still seem uninterpretable?
A ponzi scheme operator has actually committed a crime, and their crime can be compared to robbery, because it is taking money with no intention of repayment. A theft, through defrauding under false pretenses.
AURaptor voting Republican can not possibly be compared to him committing rape, or torture, or murder, or genocide.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme operator and a banker?
In any case, Auraptor, by demanding that all Muslims be killed, can be considered to be engaged in hate speech, which IS a crime. I'm not saying that rappy should be blown in to the FBI (as I was, once), but what is his responsibility and moral culpability for what he quite actively advocates?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME