Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong
I typed out a long post articulating my views about the moral aspects of this situation and then decided to delete it. The fundamental problem here is that Jim does not appear to be capable of changing his nature. Because that is so, efforts to rehabilitate him will fail and punishing him will be purely retributive. I think there is a moral case to be made against purely retributive forms of punishment in circumstances like these where the harm to Fubster and others is not either material or irreparable. A better question is whether punishing Jim now will deter future poor conduct on his part.
It isn’t for me to pass moral judgments on either Admo or Fubster, but I suggest to them both that they consider their motivations as they move forward.
Given the history of the thread, Jim has no basis to complain about being called a racist, regardless of his subjective intentions. There is no world in which calling Diablo — an ethnic minority — a “monkey” or calling Nat “a dirty Jew” is anything other than obviously and deliberately racist. Whether those slurs reflect an actual underlying enmity towards outgroups, I can’t say.
I didn't ever really have any interest in collecting the Sterling $ from him, mostly because I didn't think it would be possible for him to ever agree to it. I punted the whole thing to Admo and he's the one who got him to agree to repaying the Sterling (which I'm very grateful for). I guess as long as it's on a payment plan (or PP in Jimmy shorthand) it's not actually something he needs to be responsible for and it just goes away. He obviously has no interest in seeking employment so I really don't know what he fears with this website, seems like of all people it would affect him the least.
I do agree that he's incapable of change at this point. He's 37 and you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Just look at his behavior when he thought he was going to get some free money (a loan) from El Diabo. He was practically hopping up and down and coming up with thousands of money he owes to fake people where part of the deal I'm sure would be that he will "handle them personally." It's like something off one of those A&E shows about addiction, but so absurd you can't even take it at face value.
Emily G made a comparison to the parable of the scorpion and the frog which I think is reasonable. I think the untrained dog comparison rubbr made is more apt than either. The viper is supposed to represent evil, as I understand it. I don't think he's evil, but if he sees meat, it's his nature to go for it. You can beat him for it all you want, but he'll just feel hurt and confused, and the next time he sees meat, he will go for it again, until he gets beaten to death.
I absolutely don't want anything done to him to be retributive, since I think that's fundamentally wrong (ignore how I handled HIV's buddy please). I probably dislike him less than most people in this thread. But I don't think putting up a "Beware of Dog" sign is retributive, even if it offends the dogs sensibilities. I also don't think that forcing him to repay his debts (what he calls "loans" but I'm pretty sure it would more correctly be called restitution) is retribution but I don't think any person would argue that. As for the Sterling debt, I'm not sure. But even I know for sure that there's something else going on there that he doesn't want to see the light of day, and I'm obviously not someone with an especially keen grift sense. I think it's generous to him to call that a gray area. The fact that he's (probably) a racist/homophobe and (definitely) a misogynist aren't part of the equation. For me, at least.