Murderer vs Arse

[Sabre]

This is something I came across today, and while it first it seems obvious, when you think about it it's not so easy.

Simply put, who is the better person? The killer (not crazy) who killed someone or the arsehole who does petty crap all the time to make himself feel good by putting others down?

After all, the killer killed for a reason, be that reason be money, a woman, even rage. The point is he did a horrible thing, but he did that for a reason. He valued one mans life less than whatever. He at least has standards, goals, or at very least would be interesting to talk to.

The arse on the other hand would be annoiying to talk to, annoiying to hang around with, torments people for little to no gain. Knocking over bins so people have to clean it up, peeing in peoples letterboxes, stealing a kids ball, keying someones car, all just 'for the lulz'.

If you had to spend a day with someone, who would you pick? If you had the chance to punch one in the face, who'd you pick? Be honest.

[Drasiana]

A murderer is significantly worse than some asshole on 4chan. Because like any mature individual you can choose to, I don't know, get over petty annoyances, but you can't exactly just "get over" being murdered.

Peeing in someone's mailbox doesn't exactly make you an irredeemably horrid person sans morals who has their own personal circle of hell awaiting them.

[Xortberg]

Who's the better person? Well, there's a question with no definite answer. Of course, the moral systems of nearly all humans on the planet say the murderer is the worse, mine included, but then morals are decided by the individual, so I'm sure there's someone out there who would feel the asshole is the worse person. Then of course there's the conundrum of assigning values of any sort to individuals, which could be argued against in itself.

But I definitely think the murderer's worse.

If I had to spend a day with one? The murderer. I could try to be all pseudo-psychiatrist and pick his brains and, if I found him to be unpleasant to talk to (beyond the obvious discomfort factor) it'd be far easier to just ignore his presence and think about pretty pastel ponies than with the asshole farting in my mouth and peeing on me.

If I had to choose to punch one in the face? The asshole. The murderer already has worse coming to him than I can dish out, and while there's no doubt he's the worse person by nearly all sets of morals, he's less frustrating. Assuming the worst and the murderer killed someone close to me, I still wouldn't feel a "I want to punch him in the face" sort of rage. That's a hot, petty rage. That's the kind that the asshole would be more likely to stir in me.

[Nexus]

Honostly? if the murderer killed the arsehole, then he is the better person.

If it was a random murder and a random arsehole, the arsehole isnt a murderer, so he isnt a bad person.

[Redeemer]

If the murderer killed someone in self defense, I wouldn't class him as a bad peron. The asshole, on the other hand, isn't the best person either. However, he still wins because he hasn't killed another person.

I'd spend a day with the murderer. As a counsellor in training, it would be fascinating. And I'd gladly punch the asshole in the face.

[Thu'um]

depends on the murder's motives. the arse isn't fun to hang around, but if the murder killed for a half desient reason i'd rather hang with him.

[unoservix]

oh my god sabre you cannot seriously be suggesting that there is a moral equivalency between internet trolls and mu--

wait, yes, of course you are

Well! That's okay. Let's tell a story. I like stories. Do you like stories? No? Tough, you're gonna hear one anyway. Put the popcorn in bed and the kids in the microwave, ladies and gentlemen, 'cuz it's Storytime With Uncle Uno!

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

An asshole. We'll call him, uh, Scimitar. Yeah. Nice growly faux-tough anime manhood name. Scimitar. He's an asshole. More on that later.

A killer. We'll call him Tim. His claim to fame is having killed some people. More on that later too.

OKAY READY HERE WE GO

Once upon a time there was a guy called Scimitar. He was an asshole. He pranced around a forum on this, Our Lord's Internet, showering people with his ill-conceived opinions like so many small, pellet-like turds. It was infuriating. He was as impervious to logic and reasoned argument as Superman is to pain, Batman is to bankruptcy, and the Juggernaut is to your weapons, bitch, and the peasants did scream and beat their heads against the wall in frustration whenever he blighted a thread with his cancerous presence. Topics were derailed! Words were wasted! Mods were summoned! Dark times, they were, my friends. Dark times indeed.

As a result, our friend Scimitar was pretty much universally reviled by his peers. And for good reason! He made no real positive contribution to the community anymore. He didn't even serve to hone the debating skills of those brave but foolish members who answered his challenge for intellectual sparring, for he was as well-armed against them as a marshmallow against an aircraft carrier. Occasionally, after some perceived slight to his voluminous ego, he would loudly declare his eternal exile from the placid halls of the forum. At first the peasants did sigh in relief as the scourge left their humble boards, but always did he return, often in a matter of mere days, to haunt them once more. Dashing his planet-sized ego against the rocks of reason was clearly not an option to getting rid of him. But alas, the kingdom fair had rules, and Scimitar had not technically broken them, so he could not be pilloried and fed to the Gargantua or whatever happened to those who sufficiently offended the monarch. An inoperable tumor, if you will.

And so, time and time again, Scimitar would return to bray like a donkey and spew invective upon the land so fair. It became obvious to all that he could see the hatred with which his peers greeted him, but that only seemed to spur him on further, to new heights in aggravation. It was as though he thrived off their contempt, as though he sought to annoy them with his laughable logic and ridiculous reasoning and asinine arguments and obnoxious opinions. It was like he was...you know, an asshole.

And so it was! But there's an important lesson here about Scimitar. One that I shall reveal shortly, after I tell you the story of the other fulcrum of our tale, a man we'll call Tim.

No, not that Tim. A different guy. No, they're not related! Look, little Jimmy, would you shut up and let me tell the story? Or I'll feed you to a goddamned bear. Don't think I wouldn't, you little shit, you're not my kid.

Anyway!

Tim was an angry man. Tim's world was one of demons and conspiracies and the dark hand of a shadowy power at every turn, behind every corner, lurking in every alleyway. It was one of a war between good and evil--and of course, Tim was on the side of good, for how could a man such as he stand with anyone else in the great battle of Armageddon? For Tim, there was Good, there was Evil, and there was nothing else. And it was with such eyes that he looked out into the world and upon all those within it, and divided them accordingly.

A thinking man might object that the world cannot be seamlessly divided into good and evil, that surely the world is more gray than black and white. And the thinking man might be right. But the thinking man's thinking did not enter into the thinking of the man about which we are now thinking, and that, my friends, led us to tragedy. After all, in war, sacrifices have to be made and people on the other side of the battle have to die if you're going to win. And in war, what could be more important than winning?

By now, the thinking man should find it obvious who I'm talking about. Sabre, well, I'll spell it out for you: I'm talking about Timothy McVeigh, the man who detonated a car bomb outside the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people and injuring over 680 more. It was the deadliest single terrorist attack on US soil before September 11th. No, he was not "crazy." He knew exactly what he was doing. S'why he got executed.

Now, let's think about that. What happens when you kill one person? Well, that one person almost certainly had parents and possibly siblings and other relatives who loved them, and friends to boot. And that person might have a family of their own, a significant other or a spouse, and children who loved them. And now the object of their love is gone. Gone! What grief must they be going through? I'm sure you've lost a loved one at some point, fair reader, so I don't need to explain that awful paroxysm of whirling emotions to you.

And there are other consequences as well! Depending on the age of our one dead person and other factors, they may be the financial lifeline of a family. Or they may be the homemaker who keeps the ship running while the partner is off making the big bucks. Or they may be the child, in whom the parents have invested so much out of parental love and a desire to see their offspring reach heights they themselves did not. Or they may be a person who might have been destined for greatness someday. That dead person might have one day been a doctor who discovered the cure for cancer; a diplomat who brokered peace between Israel and Palestine; a physicist who might have brought us cold fusion; an artist or writer or musician who might have brought some measure of joy to the lives of millions; an athlete who might have served as a role model to our ever-troubled youth; why, the list just goes on. Sure, some or even most of those people might never have been destined for greatness, but you can't say that with certainty. We can't really know just what Tim took from us that day, what suffering we have now that might have been assuaged if it weren't for his car bomb. And that, fair reader, is on top of all the suffering that those deaths caused concretely to individuals!

And let's not forget about the injured, as we so often do when these tragedies take lives and limbs alike. "Injury," I'll grant, can range from a scratch to brain death and lost limbs, but we can all agree, surely, that the survivors must have borne an immense psychological burden from the horrors of what happened that day. And what of those injured more seriously than what the fine folks at Johnson & Johnson could treat? Imagine the suffering of someone who has to learn to walk with only one leg, or someone who has to function without their hearing, or someone who has to undergo skin grafts and therapy and the agony of being a burn patient? And imagine all the suffering compounded by the suffering of their friends and loved ones? And imagine the financial losses of a family whose breadwinner has to spend a year learning to walk again? And that, let's not forget, is added to the suffering of those who lost loved ones, and the suffering of the rest of us, who live in a world that might have been better had it not been for Tim's visions of good and evil.

Our friend Tim has caused quite a lot of suffering with just some fertilizer and the cruel extremes of dualism. But there's another point in here that the thinking man might discern--and since you're you, Sabre, I'll spell it out again.

The people killed in the attack? The families and loved ones left behind? The people injured in the attack? Their families and loved ones, struggling to cope? Everyone else who had some measure of suffering due to the attack? None of them chose to suffer. Tim McVeigh decided that they would suffer--knew that they would suffer, that people would die, that people would be injured, that so many people would suffer--as a result of his actions. And he did it anyway. Suffering was the point of his action! That, after all, is what terrorism is all about. And when Tim inflicted suffering on them, they had no choice in the matter. In no way was their suffering their own doing. In no way could they have prevented it, nor could they escape it once it was inflicted.

For all this, I think we can quite fairly call Timmy boy that most powerful and divisive word that was itself a part of what brought this horror to be. Evil.

So now that we've got that out of the way, let's go back to our friend Scimitar, the guy who's an asshole to people on the Internet. Remember him? Pesters people on an Internet forum because he can?

You could say that our friend Scimitar also inflicts suffering. After all, nobody likes him, but he can't actually be thrown off the forum because he hasn't broken any rules, so he just sort of hangs around and pollutes threads with his awful opinions and even worse reasoning. And people try to talk sense to him but his Logic Deflector Shields are formidable and nothing gets through. Other people try to steer the discussion back towards the thread's original subject, but the great inescapable tumor of Scimitar consumes all, and soon your thread that was previously about My Little Pony or long-distance relationships or somebody's brief animation project is now about Scimitar defending his ego at the pass of Thermopylae against the Persians only he can see. But where Thermopylae was a glorious last stand by brave defenders who were quite content to sample the fine dining of hell, the threads that fall victim to the plague of Scimitar become pedantic and irritating circlejerks where Scimitar is almost assuredly wrong, and everyone else almost assuredly right, but the observer no longer cares because this song and dance has been done so many times before it is now but undifferentiated noise to their deadened ears.

Scimitar, as we see, causes suffering of his own volition. And he knows it! He returns, time and time again, pouring vituperation upon the unsuspecting and undeserving masses and drowning them in the horseshit he regularly emits like poisonous swamp gas from the steaming maw of his mouth. He knows they don't like him. He knows he annoys them. And he comes back and does it again all the same, over and over again, 'til the Judgment Day and the trumpets sound and the gods sally forth for that last great battle of Ragnarok!

But there's another lesson here. Yes, I know, it's like an episode of The Magic School Bus, just bear with me. And shut your goddamned mouth, Arnold, you know you secretly like it.

See, while Scimitar causes suffering, in some measure its source is in the people on which he inflicts suffering. Sure, he purposely sets out to inflict suffering on people, and to the extent that people suffer due to him and have no choice in the matter, it's all on him. But surely we can mentally conceive of a world where everyone just ignored Scimitar, and, like a vine cut off from water, he would merely wither and blow away with the next stiff breeze. It is, after, the choice of gallant Bortxerg or fair Anaisard or stalwart Dairypath46 to engage his nonsense. And they know what Scimitar is like! They've seen this sorry spectacle before. Surely some of the suffering that results from the malevolence of Scimitar is their own creation.

But here is the fine point of it, ladies and gentlemen. What Scimitar does, ultimately, is annoy a few people, who could always choose to ignore him and whose frustration fades as surely as Scimitar regularly does to nurse his wounded ego. What Tim did was kill dozens of people and inflict horror and trauma on hundreds more for the rest of their lives.

So who's the worse person? Well, I'd have to say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that that's Tim the murderer.

And as for you, Sabre, don't you dare diminish the actual honest-to-goodness evil in the world by claiming that a murderer is morally equivalent to someone like you. You cause the occasional, transitory headache; murderers cause suffering enough to last a lifetime.

You are merely annoying. Our murderer is evil.

And that concludes our storytime! Join us next time for Joseph Heller's God Knows. Same Bat time, same Bat channel!

[Thu'um]

why would you post that, and how long did it take :/

[Redeemer]

Uno: take me. Take me now.

[Xortberg]

Uno, I must say this. You are the single most amazing person to ever grace this forum. I say this full well knowing Fluxy is going to get butthurt and Dairypath46 is going to rant about how he is supreme overlord of the forum and all that whatnot, but I don't care. You are a God among mere mortals. I am in love with you, completely and irrevocably.

To quote a woman I once knew, but have now all but forgotten in the wake of your glorious wall of text: "Take me. Take me now."

[Thu'um]

really i thought it was reidcules

[unoservix]

if i knew what "reidcules" meant i would be offended

but neither Oxford nor Merriam-Webster know what the hell AJC is talking about so i dunno

[Sarita]

That was the greatest story. :D

[Tailsz]

That story was definitely fascinating. * Just keep the little jabs to yourself next time though... They really didn't need to be there.

Although I do sense some are going to TLDNR it. :\

Edit: My opps radar went off. I forgot to contribute!

Tbh, a arse is like a poison, slowly causes damage to the host, but doesn't take life away immediately. It's easy to mend if you target the right places.

A killer is... Like a knife. Easily takes someone's life away, and with that causes a chain reaction to the families of the target(s). It causes serious or permanent damage that can't just wash away.

So at the end of the day, you could argue neither of them are the better person. Something classified as "petty" insult could still break someone overtime.

* Just read the story over again.

[Thu'um]

if i knew what "reidcules" meant i would be offended

but neither Oxford nor Merriam-Webster know what the hell AJC is talking about so i dunno

only i can read it and i thank god

[Sabre]

Who's the better person? Well, there's a question with no definite answer. Of course, the moral systems of nearly all humans on the planet say the murderer is the worse, mine included, but then morals are decided by the individual, so I'm sure there's someone out there who would feel the asshole is the worse person. Then of course there's the conundrum of assigning values of any sort to individuals, which could be argued against in itself.

But I definitely think the murderer's worse.

If I had to spend a day with one? The murderer. I could try to be all pseudo-psychiatrist and pick his brains and, if I found him to be unpleasant to talk to (beyond the obvious discomfort factor) it'd be far easier to just ignore his presence and think about pretty pastel ponies than with the asshole farting in my mouth and peeing on me.

If I had to choose to punch one in the face? The asshole. The murderer already has worse coming to him than I can dish out, and while there's no doubt he's the worse person by nearly all sets of morals, he's less frustrating. Assuming the worst and the murderer killed someone close to me, I still wouldn't feel a "I want to punch him in the face" sort of rage. That's a hot, petty rage. That's the kind that the asshole would be more likely to stir in me.

If the murderer killed someone in self defense, I wouldn't class him as a bad peron. The asshole, on the other hand, isn't the best person either. However, he still wins because he hasn't killed another person.

I'd spend a day with the murderer. As a counsellor in training, it would be fascinating. And I'd gladly punch the asshole in the face.

depends on the murder's motives. the arse isn't fun to hang around, but if the murder killed for a half desient reason i'd rather hang with him.

See, it's interesting isn't it?

[Drasiana]

why would you post that, and how long did it take

He was contributing

unlike, y'know, you

[Robert Monroe]

For once I am going to defend Sabre here as you all are reaaaally blowing out of proportion what he's suggesting.

The murderer is a man who killed someone. There can be very, VERY good reasons for murder sometimes. Or at least, it seems there can be. Sometimes its justice, sometimes its honor, sometimes its love. He doesn't just mean the chump asshole who kills someone because he's unhinged or because he's selfish, he has a cause. But in the end, despite this cause, is still a taker of lives.

On the flipside, the "arse", or troll, or whaaaatever you want to call him, is ultimately a petty individual. And since we're talking a case of extremes here, let's not just limit this to "asshole from 4chan". There are some genuinely horrendus trolls in the world, the likes behind things such as Zippocat, or hell, for a real life example, Westboro Baptist Church. They are the petty hate monger, the individual who has no care for anyone else in the world but himself and keeping that self ammused. We are not just talking the guy who says "lol furfaggit" for shits and giggles, but the real scumbags who make it their mission to derive joy from the suffering of others for simply being WHO THEY ARE.

That is what Sabre is asking. And I honestly don't have an answer of my own to give.

[unoservix]

if we were talking about people like whoever did the Zippocat thing or the Westboro Baptist Church, you would have a point. and if we were talking about some murderer who specifically had what might be called a good reason for doing it, you would have a point. but we're not. we're talking about petty individuals, and the ones you mentioned are not petty. a petty individual would not go to such lengths as driving around the country to intensify someone's suffering at their loved one's funeral.

after all, Sabre said it himself:

The arse on the other hand would be annoiying to talk to, annoiying to hang around with, torments people for little to no gain. Knocking over bins so people have to clean it up, peeing in peoples letterboxes, stealing a kids ball, keying someones car, all just 'for the lulz'.

"annoying to talk to, annoying to hang around with." does petty things like knocking over trashcans and stealing a kid's ball. or, y'know, being an obnoxious twat on the Internet. things that don't cause a whole lot of suffering, all told. and on the other hand, we have the murderer, who caused enormous suffering, regardless of motive.

if it sounds like an asinine question to ask which one is the worse person, that's because it is. one person deliberately caused enormous suffering; the other person deliberately causes small amounts of suffering.

this, after all, is why we punish murderers a lot more harshly than we punish the douchebag who kicks over a trashcan.

[Sabre]

1- who said anything about the arse being from the internet?

2- The point is that, despite one being almost universally being seen as worse, most (here being the exception, although it could be an understanding issue) would choose to hang with the murderer, or punch the arse. People will rationalize it various ways, but that's why it's interesting.

[Fira-Astrali]

Seriously Uno, a massive rant was uncalled for just bc you didn't like a quesiton that got asked. I understand that its mostly explaining your position but your thinly veild jabs didnt really need to be there.

[kkstarfox]

They are all evil malignant spirits who should be nailed to a cross, have their viscera spilled before their very eyes and watch as the birds peck away at their own innards. And the last thing they will see is there still beating heart as I rip it out of there chest and drink forth from their life substance.

....

:trollface:

[Robert Monroe]

if we were talking about people like whoever did the Zippocat thing or the Westboro Baptist Church, you would have a point. and if we were talking about some murderer who specifically had what might be called a good reason for doing it, you would have a point. but we're not. we're talking about petty individuals, and the ones you mentioned are not petty. a petty individual would not go to such lengths as driving around the country to intensify someone's suffering at their loved one's funeral.

after all, Sabre said it himself:

"annoying to talk to, annoying to hang around with." does petty things like knocking over trashcans and stealing a kid's ball. or, y'know, being an obnoxious twat on the Internet. things that don't cause a whole lot of suffering, all told. and on the other hand, we have the murderer, who caused enormous suffering, regardless of motive.

if it sounds like an asinine question to ask which one is the worse person, that's because it is. one person deliberately caused enormous suffering; the other person deliberately causes small amounts of suffering.

this, after all, is why we punish murderers a lot more harshly than we punish the douchebag who kicks over a trashcan.

Sabre was just giving a broad example to paint an idea. It does not limit the question in hand to just those examples. Many murderer are scum, but there are exceptions. Likewise, many trolls are smalltime chumps, but there are again exceptions. Look at the question from multiple POVs.

[Vy'drach]

First off, @ uno,

I'm 100% straight, and your post tempted me to get a sex change just so I could bear your children.

Anyway, as for Sabre's question. It's really too vague to answer. Far too many variables. There are circumstances where one can be worse than the other. Generally murder is worse than someone being an asshole, but not always. And I am reminded of a quote from "Better Days" by Jeremy Bernal, which is "I don't believe anyone ever fights for what they believe is wrong." Now I'm not going to try and defend murderers/rapists/whatever, or be given some lenience, but I will say that almost assuredly, they felt they were justified in some way, and usually they thought they were making the world a better place, somehow. Which reminds me of a famous saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Most have a mental illness, and this keeps them from realizing what they are doing/going to do is a terrible thing. Again, not defending them, just saying they are not the evil creatures and demons people seem the think, but are rather just defective humans. Dangerously defective humans.

However, trolling, depending on who/what/when/how, can have devastating consequences too. Trolling and just being an ass to someone can cause someone to commit suicide, or murder/suicide, or murder. Now this rarely happens, and it's not the assholes fault entirely, as you're responsible for your own actions, it is the asshole who was the catalyst for this event, however.

Now then, an example of murder that isn't bad. I am saddened by the events leading up to this story, but the story itself is one that I... not quite enjoy, but feel is good. Anyway, the events leading up to it is a man raped some young boy, maybe murdered him, I'm unsure. But I know he did rape him, and was arrested.

Now for the story itself, the cops were escorting the rapist somewhere, I'm unsure of that as well, and the guy was strutting down the sidewalk, proudly. He was proud, and he was proud he was getting a police escort. They were approaching a crowd of people there, the usual, the reporters and such, probably people trying to say he didn't do it (which, btw, there wasn't a doubt in heaven, hell, or anywhere in between that he did), when a figure steps out in the crowd, and this figure was the boy's father, and in his hand was a revolver, which he stepped out, put it practically to the rapist's head, and blew his brains out the other side of. Which, btw, caused the guy's head to jerk to the side, and his body to go pure ragdoll and drop straight down like a sack of flour. Then the father dropped the gun, raised his hands, and the cops reached for their guns when they realized what had happened, but they saw the father, recognized him, and stopped, and one asked, "Why *name*?! Why'd you do it!?" Which I doubt he was asking in the sense of why he killed the guy, as everyone knew, but as to why he did it and got himself arrested, because there was no doubt about what he did.

However, that's not the end of the story, as there's still the conclusion. The man wound up going to jail, and to court, was found guilty, and sentenced to... I forget exactly what, but it was nothing worse than two years probation. I believe that's what it was. A "slap on the wrist" would be an overstatement. They likely used the plea bargain for temporary insanity to get him a light sentence, but he was beyond a shadow of a doubt within his capacities, and had planned the event out.

There's no doubt about what he did, cold-blooded murder. It wasn't heat of the moment, a crime of passion, temporary loss of senses, no. This man planned and set out with the sole goal of ending the rapist's life. Again, I'm saddened about the catalyst that led to that event, but the outcome was good. And let's view that outcome better, shall we. A man avenged his son, got a level of closure most people only dream about, and a degenerate, social parasite, someone who offers nothing to redeem humanity, but merely bring it further down, is gone. You could see this man would of done it again if he'd get another chance, the rapist that is, not the father. The world is a slightly better place with that man's death, and yes a "murderer" walks free, but he's not dangerous. He didn't harm a single innocent, not a person that wasn't undeserving. He's not going to go and randomly off someone else, he's going to try and continue on with his life.

P.S. Not serious about the sex change, but I go for the lawls.