'Stupid' driver blocks an ambulance with a patient inside it.

That's fine. We try her, we find her guilty, and we break her bones. And while she's recuperating, she can't block any other ambulances, thus protecting society.

Thanos6 wrote:

That's fine. We try her, we find her guilty, and we break her bones.

Mm! Yes! I keep forgetting that the justice system is flawless, and there's absolutely NO CHANCE that an innocent person could have their bones broken, you stupid fucking clown.

Personally, I'd rather have my bones broken then spend 15 or more years in jail, but...

Cyberwulf wrote:

snip

You're just looking for excuses to be bitchy, aren't you?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Well, I'll tell you my problem with it, Aggie. It doesn't solve anything. It doesn't make you look more righteous than the person who committed the crime.

WHo said people wanted to look righteous? That's a pretty erroneous leap of logic there.

Quote :

It doesn't do anything except help you masturbate to your own sense of outrage and make you look like a disgusting person and monstrous hypocrite.

AHA! We now know the real reason that you tend to go off on these tangents all the time: you want a chance to masturbate to Cyberwulf's sense of outrage about people that dare to express sentiments that you personally feel are out of line. I should have known. However, haven't you learned that if you do that as often as you rage against other people on this forum that you're going to go blind?

Quote :

OH SHE SHOULD HAVE ALL HER BONES BROKEN AND THEN BE FORCED TO CRAWL TO THE HOSPITAL. Because deliberately injuring someone and denying them aid in getting to a medical facility is A-OK as long as that person deserves it.

Quite frankly, I'm fine with someone who is known to have done that exact same thing to an apparent stranger getting that exact same treatment themself. It's what I like to call karma and it suits me just fine in this case since the only one hurt by it is the perpetrator themself and no innocent party.

Quote :

Well fuck that noise - either it's always wrong to obstruct/deny someone medical aid, or it's just fine and dandy and this woman committed no crime.

You know, in this black and white world you like to live in there are things called grey areas. Punishment (or anger towards the perpetrator) should be tempered due to circumstance. I freely admit that I would be a hell of a lot angrier at someone that stole my pizza simply because they were too lazy to go and buy one themselves than a person who stole it because they had lost their job, were broke and were trying to feed their starving family. Stealing is wrong in both cases but one of them would incur my wrath a hell of a lot more than the other one and I don't feel there is anything wrong with that.

It's an old concept that justice came in the form of an eye for an eye. Not until we felt morally obligated to look at the perpetrator with any inkling of humanity did we change to a more theolistic penitence system. Ie. The man who stole bread did so for the betterment of his family, not for profit.

This twat did it for the lulz, and since she herself was not trying to navigate her car or her companion into the hospital for her own urgent needs, then its quite simple for many to tout the vigilante banner. Violence inherrent in the system? You're looking right down its barrel.

Hey, I'm not condoning anyone actually going and breaking her bones or whatnot; I'm simply saying that wishing ill will on someone who is undeniably guilty of causing intentional pain on people she doesn't even know for absolutely no reason whatsoever is completely understandable.

Aggie wrote:

WHo said people wanted to look righteous?

It's glaringly fucking obvious. Every time something like this gets posted here, or on the Ruins, or back on any of the incarnations of GAFF, the same people leap in to detail their savage fantasies about what should be done to the perpetrator to show how righteously angry they are.

Quote :

AHA! We now know the real reason that you tend to go off on these tangents all the time: you want a chance to masturbate to Cyberwulf's sense of outrage about people that dare to express sentiments that you personally feel are out of line.

It's so creative of you to take what I've said and turn it around. You're right, I should know by now not to interrupt the circle-jerkle. I'm just compelled to call people on their ridiculous bullshit for some reason.

Quote :

Quite frankly, I'm fine with someone who is known to have done that exact same thing to an apparent stranger getting that exact same treatment themself.

I must've missed where she jumped into the ambulance and broke all the patient's bones.

Quote :

It's what I like to call karma and it suits me just fine in this case since the only one hurt by it is the perpetrator themself and no innocent party.

Leaving aside the whole human rights angle (which would be wasted on you), and the idea that two wrongs don't make a right (since that would also be wasted on you), how can you say no innocent party would be hurt by breaking this woman's bones? There's her loved ones, who would at least have the knowledge of what happened to her (if not having to witness it), who would have to watch her suffer through extensive rehabilitation, or who might well have to bury her if she dies of her injuries whilie crawling to the hospital. There's also the person or people who had to break her bones while she screamed in agony. There are the people who would witness her crawling to the hospital and who would be prevented from helping her by other people who would then be traumatised by their role in the "just punishment". Read some literature about executioners sometime.

Quote :

You know, in this black and white world you like to live in there are things called grey areas.

Please tell me when it's fine to:
rape someone
torture someone
set someone on fire
break all a person's bones and force them to crawl to the hospital
abuse a child
throw a cat or dog into a bonfire
drown someone
deliberately run over a human being with a vehicle
get together in a group and beat and kick another human being to death or brain damage
shoot someone through the hands as a punishment
beat someone to a pulp and leave them for dead because of his/her race/sex/gender presentation/sexual orientation

I would be very interested to know what sort of "grey areas" apply there.

Quote :

I'm not condoning anyone actually going and breaking her bones or whatnot

That's funny. You just said

Quote :

I'm fine with someone who is known to have done that exact same thing to an apparent stranger getting that exact same treatment themself.

Don't we protect against cruel and unusual punishment in this country?
durr hurr

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

I'm not condoning anyone actually going and breaking her bones or whatnot

That's funny. You just said

Quote :

I'm fine with someone who is known to have done that exact same thing to an apparent stranger getting that exact same treatment themself.

That is quite funny as that's not what I said at all; what I said was that I would be fine if she were to be prevented from arriving at the hospital in a timely manner if she were injured. Nowhere did I explicitly say that I thought people should go out and break her bones. That was another poster entirely.

Perhaps you might want to think about not reading the news forum if what people say offends you so much. You seem to have extreme difficulty with grasping the concept of venting: vocalizing (or typing in this case) anger and a desire for retribution directed at people that have committed an atrocious sin against other people or animals for very little or stupid reasons.

I think I'm done trying to engage you in civilized conversation, though. I know a lost cause when I see it.

I think Cyber is taking people too seriously when they say legs should be broken for this kind of thing.

I don't think anybody here is really SERIOUS about that sort of thing.

At least, I hope they're not.

Aggie wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

I'm not condoning anyone actually going and breaking her bones or whatnot

That's funny. You just said

Quote :

I'm fine with someone who is known to have done that exact same thing to an apparent stranger getting that exact same treatment themself.

That is quite funny as that's not what I said at all; what I said was that I would be fine if she were to be prevented from arriving at the hospital in a timely manner if she were injured.

But if she had broken someone's bones, you'd be fine with her having her bones broken, yes?

By the way, please don't address anything else I said.

Quote :

Perhaps you might want to think about not reading the news forum if what people say offends you so much.

Remember everyone, if you find something offensive, you should avoid it. Hmm, hmm, if only there was a way to parse that into a pithy one-liner, perhaps involving four one-syllable words...

Quote :

You seem to have extreme difficulty with grasping the concept of venting: vocalizing (or typing in this case) anger and a desire for retribution directed at people that have committed an atrocious sin against other people or animals for very little or stupid reasons.

It's fine to say horrible horrible things as long as you're angry.

Quote :

I know a lost cause when I see it.

Look in the mirror a lot, do you?

Well, at least this discussion is less stupid than the dog one.

Cyberwulf wrote:

You seriously don't want to debate things that 'glaringly fucking obvious', because we will have to discuss the topic of you orgasming at the brilliance you see in your own posts, just because you called someone out on the simple incostistency of claiming to be good while wishing evil on someone.

Our apologies to your grace for being regular plebes with ambiguous morals.

:tongue2:

Here's a tip for assessing how smart you are on the Internet - if the people you're arguing with repeatedly reply to you, you're an idiot. If however, they carefully ignore what you consider to be the most important parts of your post, you're smarter than them because they didn't reply because they couldn't make you look stupid there.

Jeeze, Wulfy, give it a rest, will you? Yes, it's not a nice thing to wish horrible things on the heads of other people. But it feels good, and people will keep doing it to express their feelings on a topic ("They did a bad thing, so they should feel bad" is not a shocking, stunning show of self-righteous fury-- it's hoping that chance or luck will do justice, which doesn't ACTUALLY influence anything or cause anything to happen, no matter how specific the "should feel bad" descriptions get), and you bitching us out for it is just annoying and repetitious.

*isn't even involved in this wank, srsly*

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Here's a tip for assessing how smart you are on the Internet - if the people you're arguing with repeatedly reply to you, you're an idiot. If however, they carefully ignore what you consider to be the most important parts of your post, you're smarter than them because they didn't reply because they couldn't make you look stupid there.

Like in that conspiracy theories thread?

Fuck you, Alana. We're not talking about someone 'feeling bad', we're talking about breaking someone's bones and then denying them assistance in getting to a hospital. Read the thread, dipshit.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Fuck you, Alana. We're not talking about someone 'feeling bad', we're talking about breaking someone's bones and then denying them assistance in getting to a hospital. Read the thread, dipshit.

Considering said someone was denying someone else, who was dying, ability to get to a hospital it only seems fair.

... I would assume having your bones broken would feel bad, but correct me if I'm wrong, guys.

Anyhow, no one here is seriously advocating someone actually goes out and finds this woman and takes a baseball bat to her. They're just saying, if it DID happen, it would be sweet, sweet, cruel justice. Which is rather horrible, yeah, but sometimes people say horrible things. Even when they're on an unmoderated snark forum! Shock! Gasp!

Didn't you get the memo? An opinion is only valid if Cyberwulf agrees with it. Otherwise you're a bad person and should feel bad.

After reading this entire thread, I see why moral absolutism is stupid.

Honestly, I personally think it's better that people can still be outraged by such things and haven't gone on a disturbing slide down the 'Meh, it doesn't affect me and I can't do anything about it so why should I care?' slope.

I'm also glad that the judge had enough sense to give her an actual punishment (lenient though it was) and may have possibly even looked into a harsher sentence even though it was found to be unenforceable.

...Mmkay, I can see why people are angry - I am too! - but the justice system already took care of her punishment for us so we don't have to entertain violent thoughts anymore! Isn't it wonderful?

Oh wait, I'm supposed to disagree with Cyberwulf on principle. Oops. Yeah. Um. Medieval torture?

Wishing horrible things on someone because they're a fucking dipshit sociopath is okay as long as you don't actually make an effort to do these horrible things.

My two cents.