What do you think about this situation?

[CheertheSecond]

It's going to be interesting how Corty reacts to the sin especially because of our argument that we had in the thread.

Wait! What argument?

 

[Voidiris]

Wait! What argument?

Get fucked.

Can't handle the consequences of something? Just don't do it.

Wouldn't it be for some wonderful if life would be that easy.

It is that easy.

I implied in wouldn't it be wonderful if life would be that easy that people can be unaware of what they are doing and there could be more scenarios like doing irredeemable things to help someone you love or doing irredeemable sins so you can even survive.

 

[Jet]

Lol, I thought they killed someone, yet the person is just a pervert. Pitiful, I suppose.

 

[Corty]

I implied in wouldn't it be wonderful if life would be that easy that people can be unaware of what they are doing and there could be more scenarios like doing irredeemable things to help someone you love or doing irredeemable sins so you can even survive.

My assessment stays.

Being drunk is not an excuse. Not in the law’s eye either.

 

[Notadate]

War vets. Usually are like this

 

[QuercusMalus]

Spoiler: sin reveal

So in short, the person got drunk and fucked their underage kid. They felt bad about it and tried to make up for the past but are often haunted by the nightmare. The nightmare replaying the scene they did to their kid and it traumatised them because it reminded them of how good it felt. They were depressed because it showed them the devil inside which could return. Of course, they never wanted to commit that transgression. So when they were reminded of the time they were not themselves, they felt really bad about it. It's an attack on their conscience.

'They weren't themselves'. Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. They raped a child. A slave that hadn't way to resist. That is who they are. No amount of good deeds makes them a good person. They aren't doing the deeds because they're good. They're doing them to make themselves feel better. Nothing more. This person is a narcissistic shit who deserves more than nightmares showing them who they truly are. They're only upset because the dreams disturbed their precious lie.

 

[Voidiris]

'They weren't themselves'. Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. They raped a child. A slave that hadn't way to resist. That is who they are. No amount of good deeds makes them a good person. They aren't doing the deeds because they're good. They're doing them to make themselves feel better. Nothing more. This person is a narcissistic shit who deserves more than nightmares showing them who they truly are. They're only upset because the dreams disturbed their precious lie.

That's the reason I don't really care about him, he is nothing but a "good" person that made a mistake that destroyed their narcissistic image of themself, narcissism is something every human needs to function, those who are not narcissistic are just pathetic.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

So a person who committed an irredeemable sin tried their best to make up for the past. They tried to do as much good deed as possible but they frequently got nightmare of the crime they made.



I want your judgement to be as impartial as possible. What do you think about their situation? Pitiful? Well-deserved?


Will reveal their sin after a while.

Spoiler: sin reveal

So in short, the person got drunk and fucked their underage kid. They felt bad about it and tried to make up for the past but are often haunted by the nightmare. The nightmare replaying the scene they did to their kid and it traumatised them because it reminded them of how good it felt. They were depressed because it showed them the devil inside which could return. Of course, they never wanted to commit that transgression. So when they were reminded of the time they were not themselves, they felt really bad about it. It's an attack on their conscience.

The only irredeemable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

The only worthy atonement for sins is a perfect substitute for the punishment. Thankfully, there is good news.

 

[QuercusMalus]

Blocking voidiris, because anyone who thinks raping a child can be justified..... yeah

 

[Reinaislost]

Blocking voidiris, because anyone who thinks raping a child can be justified..... yeah

They are young. Quite so.

 

[Voidiris]

Blocking voidiris, because anyone who thinks raping a child can be justified..... yeah

Justification is a matter of worldviews, morals and character.
But you do you.
When did I even justify that again?
I just said that his actions are natural for such a person like him.
But your reaction was quite entertaining.

 

[RepresentingEnvy]

You can't justify this act; the atonement doesn't fit the crime. Who cares if he is traumatized for hurting a child? He should be traumatized. And that kid will have to live with that fact for the rest of their life.

 

[Reinaislost]

I just said that his actions are natural for such a person like him.

This is a justification in itself. Yeah, you are going to have plenty of bad takes growing up; it's a part of it.

 

[Voidiris]

They are young. Quite so.

That doesn't matter, does it?
He definitely isn't about to care and I would laugh at him for suddenly taking his things back.
This was a simple situation where he disliked my opinion and thus showed direct disgust to me.
I still don't know where he saw my justification of child rape, I simply see the actions after the rape natural.
He lost his positive self image, his narcissism doesn't function anymore after the rape that destroyed part of his narcissism, thus he tries to undo his actions by doing actions he or the society sees as good.
I use narcissism to describe every form of positive self image here and above, narcissistic people have a too high self image or narcissism and those with narcissistic personality disorder should be always inclined to being narcissistic.

This is a justification in itself. Yeah, you are going to have plenty of bad takes growing up; it's a part of it.

Why does a natural reaction justify anything? So it was seen as justification.
Now I'm confused why you think that natural behavior is a justification?

 

[BearlyAlive]

Was the child a girl and the perv a boy? Just groom and stockholm her Kodomo no Jikan-style and marry her after she's of age. Seems like that's the way most asians seem to handle this kind of situation...
If it was a boy kid and the perv a woman, just tell the kid to wait a few years and then give him bragging rights, then same steps as above.
If both were male then it means he's cathloic and raping kids is the easiest way to climb ranks there. He also wouldn't feel bad about it as it's written in his job description.
If both were female then there's nothing that happened unless it involved penetration.

 

[Voidiris]

Was the child a girl and the perv a boy? Just groom and stockholm her Kodomo no Jikan-style and marry her after she's of age. Seems like that's the way most asians seem to handle this kind of situation...
If it was a boy kid and the perv a woman, just tell the kid to wait a few years and then give him bragging rights, then same steps as above.
If both were male then it means he's cathloic and raping kids is the easiest way to climb ranks there. He also wouldn't feel bad about it as it's written in his job description.
If both were female then there's nothing that happened unless it involved penetration.

Now I want to see what DtheCatastrophe will say to that, that's going to be hilarious.

 

[BearlyAlive]

Now I want to see what DtheCatastrophe will say to that, that's going to be hilarious.

Wowowowowow, if it wasn't obvious. All of the above was sarcasm (except the jab at the catholic priests, that's just the sad truth by now...)! IF anything I said rings true, then you should feel ashamed or seek medical help depending on how true it rang. I edit stories, not morals.

 

[Voidiris]

Wowowowowow, if it wasn't obvious. All of the above was sarcasm (except the jab at the catholic priests, that's just the sad truth by now...)! IF anything I said rings true, then you should feel ashamed or seek medical help depending on how true it rang. I edit stories, not morals.

He interpreted what I said as supporting child rape, even if I never said or intended to support child rape.
So he would probably go ballistic after reading your comment or rather not he would probably be more disgusted.

 

[Reinaislost]

That doesn't matter, does it?
He definitely isn't about to care and I would laugh at him for suddenly taking his things back.
This was a simple situation where he disliked my opinion and thus showed direct disgust to me.

It does, in fact. If you were old—say, a middle-aged man—saying this and combined with what you previously said about the act not being sad, horrific, or even irredemable—perhaps not on ScribbleHub—but you'd be squarely bullied off the internet. This is the privilege you have courtesy of being young.

Why does a natural reaction justify anything? So it was seen as justification.
Now I'm confused why you think that natural behavior is a justification?

I know you like to say morality is relative and what not, but just in this instance, let us establish: child thing is bad and a morally reprehensible thing to do. The second is that, under no circumstances, you can posit it as a natural thing to do. Now, if you don't see it already, what you did here was shift the blame from the person to their trait.

Dogs are dogs, and they bite. You justified it calling, 'well, he is a narcissist. It is only natural for them.' Essentially, the person's behavior is expected and understandable given they are narcissistic, thus excusing their action, for such acts are natural for them. It isn't, no matter if they are low-life, under influence, narcissistic, lured, etc.

 

[TsumiHokiro]

It is only natural for them.' Essentially, the person's behavior is expected and understandable given they are narcissistic, thus excusing their action, for such acts are natural for them. It isn't, no matter if they are low-life, under influence, narcissistic, lured, etc.

I see here you have a double standard, yet you very well understand that "Natural" are two different things. One is the nature of things "expected to act like" and the other is "to be low-life". I was going to be quiet, but your double standard couldn't be more evident here: people who call Nature cruel think Nature has this will of doing the bad to people, and you are probably the type of person who humanizes Nature and other things that are not HUMANS.

Never confuse the meaning of what NATURE means. Nature is not morality. People have natures, and people have moral acts. It's called Ethic and Morals for a reason. You are saying that everything should be the same, and you fail to understand that Philosophy has debated the separation of these before even the FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. Your argument is so silly it is laughable. You cannot understand that people have compulsions (which do not justify their actions)? And to say "It's natural" does not mean someone is saying "Oh, but I of course agree with the act, it's in their nature!" Only a select few individuals who believe in a very exclusive world view that excludes most that which Science and Philosophy has been fighting for are so extreme to fail to understand this; afterall, it's been under the study of PHILOSOPHY, and THEOLOGY, even before SCIENCE was a thing.