Kav Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 The only person that called you a degenerate is you. Nobody called me a degenerate. It was said that the views were degenerate and something I had said was referred to.
Zechs Merquise Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 To draw a very quick analogy; If you have two adventurers at the bottom of a mountain, the first gets halfway up, he only sees the grey of the rocks, the ominous cloud cover above and only experiences the biting wind on his skin. But he gives up, so that is all he knows. The second gets to the top. He breaks through the cloud cover and sees the sun, he looks down on the clouds and experiences the sparkling beauty of the summit as he observes eagles soaring majestically. The man who never gave in and stuck it out has a completely different perspective on life and the challenges it throws up than the man who gives up. In the same way the weak will always have a different perspective to the strong, because the strong go on to succeed where the weak yield.
MoogleViper Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 When did this thread turn into a pile of bollocks?
Sheikah Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 The second gets to the top. He breaks through the cloud cover and sees the sun, he looks down on the clouds and experiences the sparkling beauty of the summit as he observes eagles soaring majestically. That's really not a good analogy at all. For someone serving a 35 year sentence whose life is pretty much already over, in any meaningful sense, your analogy may as well be replaced with an abseil down into the core of hell. It'd be more accurate.
Debug Mode Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 If I was given a few years, no I wouldn't choose death. If I was given 35 years? I'd certainly consider it. To put that into perspective I'd be 58 by the time that rolled around. That's a long time, things would have drastically changed, could I consider 35 years in a box without seeing family/friends? Perhaps not. That's pretty much the main reason for my opinion. It also doesn't help that I've not got much of a will to live to be honest, I've got a pessimistic outlook for my future so if I wound up with a 35 year sentence for something or quickly getting snuffed out, I'd go for snuffed out.
Goafer Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 When did this thread turn into a pile of bollocks? I'm not entirely sure, but I'm going to climb the fuck out of that pile to see the sun at the top. Or something. Might just be another giant bollock at the top. ADVENTURE.
Diageo Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 The analogy would only work if there was indeed something good from coming out of prison at age 70 and if a person is particularly happy with that kind of eventual reward. At that age, would he probably wouldn't be able to get a job as no one would hire him, he would no longer have any friends, no place to live. It's a bit like a zombie apocalypse. Some people would rather choose death over surviving in a world where they are in constant danger. That's because they don't value a life that is just for the sake of survival, it's not worth the effort. Whereas some people value just surviving. It doesn't make one person stronger than the other, it means they place different values on different kinds of life. If they had a purpose they valued highly, like the safety of a loved one, they would work just as hard and be just as strong as anyone else.
jayseven Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 @kav82 you never answered my post! I think it's important to be able to distinguish a few things, when presenting an opinion. To oneself, ones own opinion is, largely, the same as a fact. When entering a debate one is attempting to display their opinion, often contrary to that of others. There can only be two reasons as to why one wishes to convey their own opinion; for acceptance, or for convincement. You either are seeking those that agree with you (which could be done for a number of reasons) or attempting to alter the perception of others. My question to @kav82 and @zechsmerquise is simply this; which do you believe you are intending to do in this thread? Would you say that the answer would be the same for how you enter all discussions?
Kav Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 @jayseven I'm struggling to answer because if I think about that situation I can't help but only see myself as the person keeping the other one alive. I'm never the victim. :p Also, I just wanted to state my opinion on the Ian Watkins matter. I didn't want to push my opinion on anyone else or have it verified by someone else. The discussions only went from there because people questioned my opinion and attacked my views, I hadn't attacked theirs until they attacked mine... just for the laughs mainly.
Ramar Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 When did this thread turn into a pile of bollocks? Shortly after I posted I believe..
bob Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 Would a pile of bollocks be 'in scrotia' or would they be loose and rolling around? I imagine a pile of loose bollocks would be hard to achieve, whereas a mound of scrotums would stack quite pleasingly.
Ramar Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 Would a pile of bollocks be 'in scrotia' or would they be loose and rolling around? I imagine a pile of loose bollocks would be hard to achieve, whereas a mound of scrotums would stack quite pleasingly. Would it be possible to stack loose ones like a Ferrero Rocher mountain?
bob Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 "Ambassador, with this pile of loose bollocks, you must certainly are not spoiling us"
MoogleViper Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 (edited) Would it be possible to stack loose ones like a Ferrero Rocher mountain? No, they're not spherical like Ferrero Rocher. It'd be more like a string-net bag of plums. Edited December 30, 2013 by MoogleViper
jayseven Posted December 27, 2013 Posted December 27, 2013 @jayseven I'm struggling to answer because if I think about that situation I can't help but only see myself as the person keeping the other one alive. I'm never the victim. :p Also, I just wanted to state my opinion on the Ian Watkins matter. I didn't want to push my opinion on anyone else or have it verified by someone else. The discussions only went from there because people questioned my opinion and attacked my views, I hadn't attacked theirs until they attacked mine... just for the laughs mainly. Ok, so essentially you are saying, buy not being able to see yourself in the shoes of the victim, you are either refusing to, or unable to, emphasise for the sake of discussion or debate. And to clarify, you are stating that you expressed an opinion not to urge others to understand it, or to seek others who are in agreement. I was going to link you to this brief summary of some decent principles which should be sought out as the foundations for arguing a point. In short, if you are wanting to express an opinion for any reason I mentioned earlier, it is important to present it in such a way as to allow for discourse and deeper understanding. however, if you are unable to see that subsequent 'attacks' actually stem from your post (that is, your actions cause a reaction) and that you only further the 'discussion' for the lols, then there is no other conclusion to be drawn; you're trolling. Therefore, your opinion is void, and the 'attacks' on your stance can be taken to be entirely valid. You enter into the forum not to exchange ideas and grow (excuse my wistful ideals), but merely to act as antagonist, as outsider. You choose to not enter into dialogue, and consequentially the merit of your words decreases. Each time you present your argument in this manner (hence why, earlier, I had asked if this was your general stance on debating) you further dirty your name and instead build a reputation which will quick the 'attacks' because people see you are not in the debate for the good of everyone involved. tl;dr congrats you got me to use lots of words for your own laughs! But I consider that I have presented my 'analysis' of your behaviour in such a way that I have fully explained how I will subsequentially reply to your posts - which will be made clear in due course. That wasn't much of a tl;dr was it?
Kav Posted December 27, 2013 Posted December 27, 2013 I think you've read way too much into that @jayseven The first part of my comment you quoted was me just jokin with you, hence the smiley. I chose to answer like that because I don't see the validity of your post given that the situation couldn't arise as you'd described, hypothetical or not. Also, I posted to say my opinion, not to force it on anyone I said. That doesn't mean I didn't want to discuss it but rather than discuss people just attacked. Nobody asked why I took such an extreme view on the matter, they just attacked. That's not discussion. I've not dirtied my name, you've just jumped on the bandwagon and attacked. You reply to my posts how you wish. As I'll do with yours.
jayseven Posted December 27, 2013 Posted December 27, 2013 Sorry @kav82! @jayseven has blocked you from reading his messages. For more information, please visit our FAQ on mod etiquette here
Kav Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 Sorry @kav82! @jayseven has blocked you from reading his messages. For more information, please visit our FAQ on mod etiquette here It's ok, no need to apologise, I didn't find your posts to have any worth anyway.
Diageo Posted December 29, 2013 Posted December 29, 2013 Ok, so essentially you are saying, buy not being able to see yourself in the shoes of the victim, you are either refusing to, or unable to, emphasise for the sake of discussion or debate. And to clarify, you are stating that you expressed an opinion not to urge others to understand it, or to seek others who are in agreement. I was going to link you to this brief summary of some decent principles which should be sought out as the foundations for arguing a point. In short, if you are wanting to express an opinion for any reason I mentioned earlier, it is important to present it in such a way as to allow for discourse and deeper understanding. however, if you are unable to see that subsequent 'attacks' actually stem from your post (that is, your actions cause a reaction) and that you only further the 'discussion' for the lols, then there is no other conclusion to be drawn; you're trolling. Therefore, your opinion is void, and the 'attacks' on your stance can be taken to be entirely valid. You enter into the forum not to exchange ideas and grow (excuse my wistful ideals), but merely to act as antagonist, as outsider. You choose to not enter into dialogue, and consequentially the merit of your words decreases. Each time you present your argument in this manner (hence why, earlier, I had asked if this was your general stance on debating) you further dirty your name and instead build a reputation which will quick the 'attacks' because people see you are not in the debate for the good of everyone involved. tl;dr congrats you got me to use lots of words for your own laughs! But I consider that I have presented my 'analysis' of your behaviour in such a way that I have fully explained how I will subsequentially reply to your posts - which will be made clear in due course. That wasn't much of a tl;dr was it? I think you're being very condescending with your post. Opinions are not only given for acceptance or convincement, especially in forums. When I give most of my opinions I'm not trying to convince anyone or look for acceptance, I'm just giving another point of view that people are welcome to accept or not. To say his opinion is void because he doesn't use your principles of argument is a lacking conclusion. This isn't a debate, but a conversation. Albeit no longer a fantastic conversation but if you want to give someone advice, insulting them or treating them like a child will invoke an emotional defence response that will impede any sort of rational deliberation.
Kav Posted December 29, 2013 Posted December 29, 2013 So, back on topic, 35 years. Going from what our law allows I'm glad he got a long sentence. The severity of his crimes are truly horrendous. As you're all aware I don't feel this is a harsh sentence. My reasoning for my feelings to it being a lenient sentence are because of the nature of the crime, the number of offences committed and also his reaction toward to the whole thing. This is a man who repeatedly abused numerate children, including the attempted rape of a baby. For people saying he has an illness, if this is the case and it is an illness, why did he never once consult someone about it to try and seek some form of help? He knew he was doing wrong, hence the whole secrecy of it all as time went on. Even knowing what he was doing was wrong he still sees it with a sick twisted satisfaction hence the "mega lolz" quote. For me, I'd rather the world be rid of this man. I wouldn't want a jail cell to be taken up by him, for money to be used to pay for this man to continue living, albeit in a cell. I don't feel his crimes deserve an attempt at rehabilitation. People say he'd get out at 70 and not be a danger to anyone but how can you know? He could still abuse children at that age. For me, I think death would be just in this case. Of course the law doesn't allow so I live within the law and am happy that the maximum sentence was given.
Diageo Posted December 29, 2013 Posted December 29, 2013 So, back on topic, 35 years. Going from what our law allows I'm glad he got a long sentence. The severity of his crimes are truly horrendous. As you're all aware I don't feel this is a harsh sentence. My reasoning for my feelings to it being a lenient sentence are because of the nature of the crime, the number of offences committed and also his reaction toward to the whole thing. This is a man who repeatedly abused numerate children, including the attempted rape of a baby. For people saying he has an illness, if this is the case and it is an illness, why did he never once consult someone about it to try and seek some form of help? He knew he was doing wrong, hence the whole secrecy of it all as time went on. Even knowing what he was doing was wrong he still sees it with a sick twisted satisfaction hence the "mega lolz" quote. For me, I'd rather the world be rid of this man. I wouldn't want a jail cell to be taken up by him, for money to be used to pay for this man to continue living, albeit in a cell. I don't feel his crimes deserve an attempt at rehabilitation. People say he'd get out at 70 and not be a danger to anyone but how can you know? He could still abuse children at that age. For me, I think death would be just in this case. Of course the law doesn't allow so I live within the law and am happy that the maximum sentence was given. The idea that for something to be a sickness the victim has to realise they have it and seek help is a false assumption to make. Do you not think the fact that he thought it was "mega lolz" that he is indeed mentally defective?
Kav Posted December 29, 2013 Posted December 29, 2013 The idea that for something to be a sickness the victim has to realise they have it and seek help is a false assumption to make. Do you not think the fact that he thought it was "mega lolz" that he is indeed mentally defective? I do indeed to some extent, but to have kept it secret and hidden, then that to me shows an indication of comprehension of his actions. This makes me believe he's not entirely mentally defective.
Recommended Posts