A Gesture of Reconciliation

kira said:
She or the BBC (or even the video :rolleyes:) probably lied, but how is it me quoting the news being dishonest when I tell the news as it is? In case you can't hear the news provided by Lucy on the link, you can look it up in BBC news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8313997.stm
Click to expand...

Because if you watched the video, you can plainly see it was not forced. Either you're dishonest or you're not interested in checking facts a little more directly. Neither is a positive thing.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxODMlEKUZ4
 
WillNever said:
Probably I would, in time. It wouldn't be up to me to forgive them though. I'm in no position to judge another human being and neither are you. Only you can judge yourself.

You're off the point though. You shouldn't use words that aren't true and then say "and?" If they were fooled, then you shouldn't say it were forced. That's called being dishonest.
Click to expand...

Hey, here's a cup of coffee with a few new additives. Drink it!:)
 
WillNever said:
Because if you watched the video, you can plainly see it was not forced. Either you're dishonest or you're not interested in checking facts a little more directly. Neither is a positive thing.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxODMlEKUZ4
Click to expand...


Well, what I see from your own link is at first those sickos prepare the food, bring it to toilet, pee on it, told the janitors (who are standing in doggy position) to eat the foods. One of the janitor was vomit, and then the sickos told her to keep eating the foods even if she refused. Funny that you changed the topic into me :rolleyes:, accusing me being dishonest, when the video itself and the first link provided here confirm that they are indeed fooled and forced.

I find it disgusting that people would tolerate such things and talk about forgiveness.
 
........they sold their dignity for a bit of whiskey? o_O
Click to expand...

Apparently. If you look at it from outside the perspective of skin color, it doesn't appear racist at all. It looks more like some kids wanted to behave like little assholes by tricking the lesser educated staff for their own amusement.

What's rather odd is how much the staff are laughing after they find out.
 
kira said:
Well, what I see from your own link is at first those sickos prepare the food, bring it to toilet, pee on it, told the janitors (who are standing in doggy position) to eat the foods. One of the janitor was vomit, and then the sickos told her to keep eating the foods even if she refused. Funny that you changed the topic into me :rolleyes:, accusing me being dishonest, when the video itself and the first link provided here confirm that they are indeed fooled and forced.

I find it disgusting that people would tolerate such things and talk about forgiveness.
Click to expand...

But that isn't forced.
 
WillNever said:
Probably I would, in time. It wouldn't be up to me to forgive them though. I'm in no position to judge another human being and neither are you. Only you can judge yourself.
Click to expand...

That's true no one can make you forgive or not forgive anyone. However what kind of precedent is this school chancellor setting? Zero tolerance is what should have been used. Regardless of whether this was a hate crime or just some stupid idiots acting like stupid idiots (as college students are prone to do) it doesn't matter. Behavior like this shouldn't be tolerated. Making it obvious to people that they can get away with misbehaving, is what this guy did wrong. All instances of misbehavior should be handled seriously. It is not the school's job to forgive, if you break the rules... you're gone. That's it end of story. So unless the school has no rules against harassing faculty, the students shouldn't be there.

There was a graduate student at my school who was molesting undergrad women under the guise of a helpful physical trainer. When one woman finally had enough and told on him, his reasons for touching these women inappropriately did not matter. The school has a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment/molestation of faculty or students so even though the law didn't really get heavily involved he was still expelled. He might have made a great doctor someday, but he screwed up his chances at that school and has no one to blame but himself. The same should go for those boys who think it's funny to mistreat people.
 
Zero tolerance is what should have been used.
Click to expand...

"Zero tolerance" simply means "We're intolerant."

And intolerance is dangerously close to fascism. And that sends an even worse message.

Obviously, I don't support any so-called "zero tolerance" policies, mainly because I think people are too hung up on *punishing after the fact* and not focused enough on *prevention* before the fact.

Punishments don't prevent problems. Punishments are merely vindictive. Truth.
 
WillNever said:
"Zero tolerance" simply means "We're intolerant."

And intolerance is dangerously close to fascism. And that sends an even worse message.

Obviously, I don't support any so-called "zero tolerance" policies, mainly because I think people are too hung up on *punishing after the fact* and not focused enough on *prevention* before the fact.

Punishments don't prevent problems. Punishments are merely vindictive. Truth.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think zero tolerance policies are preventative. If there are no consequences to anything what keeps people from doing it again? I know that pushing my boss out of a five story building window is wrong, but if I do it anyway and no one cares, that just gives me all the more incentive to push everyone else I don't like out a five story building window. But I know that if I push my boss out of the window, I'll be guaranteed a punishment and will have to endure something I won't like which will be worse than enduring my obnoxious boss. So I won't push her out of a window.
 
CutsieMarie89 said:
I disagree. I think zero tolerance policies are preventative. If there are no consequences to anything what keeps people from doing it again? I know that pushing my boss out of a five story building window is wrong, but if I do it anyway and no one cares, that just gives me all the more incentive to push everyone else I don't like out a five story building window. But I know that if I push my boss out of the window, I'll be guaranteed a punishment and will have to endure something I won't like which will be worse than enduring my obnoxious boss. So I won't push her out of a window.
Click to expand...

Something might be wrong with your morals. Lawrence Kohlberg would have had a field day examining you, if fear of an outside punishment is preventing you from being a killer.

In the meantime, for most normal people, we don't assume the worst about them. That's called being civilized. :cool:

FACT: most people who commit a crime report later that they did so believing they weren't going to be caught. Clearly, the degree of punishment is rather irelevant in the grand scheme of things. It certainly does not prevent minors from criminal behavior once they reach the age of 18 and receive stiffer penalties. So why it would it for anyone else?

Statistically speaking, harsh penalties are proven non-agents in preventing crime. All they do is bloat prisons for longer. Just look at California, who is now forced to spend more money on its prison system than it does on public education. :cool:
 
CutsieMarie89 said:
I disagree. I think zero tolerance policies are preventative. If there are no consequences to anything what keeps people from doing it again? I know that pushing my boss out of a five story building window is wrong, but if I do it anyway and no one cares, that just gives me all the more incentive to push everyone else I don't like out a five story building window. But I know that if I push my boss out of the window, I'll be guaranteed a punishment and will have to endure something I won't like which will be worse than enduring my obnoxious boss. So I won't push her out of a window.
Click to expand...

I would guess urinating in the coffee had never crossed your mind either.

Those jerks are sociopaths and best left outside the gate.
 
People who have done way worse things (like killing someone) are not medically diagnosable socioipaths, milkweed. It's time to stop anklebiting and avoid hyperbole.
 
WillNever said:
Something might be wrong with your morals. Lawrence Kohlberg would have had a field day examining you, if fear of an outside punishment is preventing you from being a killer.

In the meantime, for most normal people, we don't assume the worst about them. That's called being civilized. :cool:

FACT: most people who commit a crime report later that they did so believing they weren't going to be caught. Clearly, the degree of punishment is rather irelevant in the grand scheme of things. It certainly does not prevent minors from criminal behavior once they reach the age of 18 and receive stiffer penalties. So why it would it for anyone else?

Statistically speaking, harsh penalties are proven non-agents in preventing crime. All they do is bloat prisons for longer. Just look at California, who is now forced to spend more money on its prison system than it does on public education. :cool:
Click to expand...

I think prevention methods are great, but that doesn't mean crimes should go unpunished either, when/if prevention methods fail. And in my personal experience punishment or the threat of punishment is preventative.
 
milkweed said:
I would guess urinating in the coffee had never crossed your mind either.

Those jerks are sociopaths and best left outside the gate.
Click to expand...

No that's gross. I don't actually hate my boss, she's really cool. I used to have a boss I hated, but I never did anything to her because I knew I'd get fired or reprimanded if I did.
 
Kennedy-boy-oh, why didn't you drink that coffee I offered you? I added something special to it....just for you You no likey coffee with urine? ;~;
 
I'm quite sure that if we polled a wide cross section of normal, mentally health adults and asked them if they would rather at some unknown time be tricked into drinking one sip of urine, or instead have their very existence destroyed, the answer would be universal. Some things are definitely not subjective. :cool:
 
WillNever said:
I'm quite sure that if we polled a wide cross section of normal, mentally health adults and asked them if they would rather at some unknown time be tricked into drinking one sip of urine, or instead have their very existence destroyed, the answer would be universal. Some things are definitely not subjective. :cool:
Click to expand...

Existence destroyed? So they'd kill you burn everything you've ever touched and wipe everyone's memories of you? I'd rather work at a fast food restaurant for the rest of my life than let that happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top