neornithes | one; anonymous

Entry tags:

one; anonymous

[Hello, Deadman Wonderland. Today you get a brief message on your communication device of choice. Mitsuki is very well aware any of the higher staff could find out who she is but she's not going to say anything that would be too beneficial to them. No. She's aiming for the prisoners.]

Good day, Deadman Wonderland. It's been a little while since we spoke but a few of my thoughts were repeating themselves. I have another question:

What is the difference between a dog and a wolf? Metaphorically, speaking, of course. In this situation... Well. I wouldn't go so far as to accuse of everyone being guilty but a little paranoia may be forgiven when you're in prison. I suppose the better question is: does the vote of a judge define what guilt is? Is the person who did nothing but convicted a wolf? Or are they a dog, wrongly identified, and thrown in with the real wolves?

I admit it's a bit of a heavy subject. If you'd like to ask me questions instead, I'll answer them to the best of my ability. After all, we're all civilized people here. Conversation keeps our minds agile.

[Yes, she's pretending to be this anonymous person. I mean. She totally is that person, what are you talking about?]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Classic civil law requires a judge to consider code, not precedence. As law is a social matter however precedence is inescapable. It's similar to the question of when to use of cladistic and Linnaean taxonomy: that is, whether the act or its context is what defines it. One may think of the various legal codes as phylogenies. Civil law, common law. Family law, criminal law, corporate law. They will have low values of hierarchical structure being only apparent, not inherent.

Good and bad people do exist as surely as wolves and dogs. Humans cannot observe anything like a genome of evil and so society will err in both directions, but a tamed wolf is still a wolf, and a dog driven to desperation is still a dog.

I see. It can be argued that a crime can be based on the act itself or the context that led up to it. Both ways have their own strengths and faults. Then there's the fact that the judge may not be impartial. That thought, while complicating this exercise, cannot be overlooked. After all, they are human. They have their own biases and, of course, there's always the chance of bribery.

You do have a point. However, isn't it known that even a wolf raised by hand is still a wild animal? There are several cases that a tamed wolf has turned on their owner. While a feral dog, as dangerous as it is, can be rehabilitated back into being civil once again.

We agree; a wolf is a wolf. Many don't acknowledge that people are the same as dogs and wolves: ultimately good or bad; social or feral. A wolf may lay low its entire life but its instincts have not been bred out. A bad man may follow society's structure to the grave for fear of retribution, but he is not good. Dormant evil relies on the social, genteel, progress oriented nature of the good.

I also agree with your skepticism regarding claims of innocence in here. Bias and bribery are minimized by a panel of multiple judges, and prosecution is rarely attempted if the evidence is not conclusive.

Neither does innocence of a specific crime make one good. Regardless of a dog's potential for rehabilitation, once it becomes too dangerous it must be eliminated the same as a wolf.

It's a simple enough metaphor for this particular, I think. After all, wolves and dogs are very similar: they're social animals, they can look very similar, but their temperaments to humans are very different. Their similarity is the reason I chose them as the metaphor. Good and bad people can look very similar.

As you said, a wolf may live in a forest near a town and never harm anyone. Yet the threat is there. A bad man may never act criminally but may still harm society: there are a number non-criminal ways to be considered a 'bad' person. They may cheat on their spouse, may drink too much, or any other thing that isn't illegal. This might not even make him socially unacceptable. That doesn't mean he is good. He is simply there.

On the other hand, a dog simply just be in the wrong place or time. There's been dog attacks. A dog may be aggressive towards humans or even other dogs. A theoretically good person may be forced into a situation where the only reaction is to bite. A lapse of judgement, the influence of substances, or even in self defense.

It seems that you seem to think that the guilt of a crime doesn't determine whether a person is good or not.

Do you agree?

I think it's a valid viewpoint.

How noncommittal for someone already anonymous.

Admittedly, I'm trying to be impartial for the sake of this debate but I will say that I do agree.

Are you concerned others won't risk self disclosure if they can read your position in this thread, concerned for your anonymity, or is it something else?

The first.

You want to see who makes excuses for themselves.

Otherwise, who would excuse you.

Oh? I see you're an observant type.

So, which is it? Do you think you're speaking to a wolf or a dog?

Judgment in here doesn't mean anything: everyone will be a wolf or a corpse.

It's true.

But I will say that it matters, and not merely ontologically, whether one can be just when it's no longer literally life and death.

Who says that it doesn't matter now?

There are times dogs act as wolves. The state undertakes the task of imprisoning and killing people, bad acts for the good of society. Men are conscripted to go to war and kill for the good of society. This place is a situation like that. The good may have an obligation to struggle but they don't have the obligation to die. They have the obligation to live and perpetuate a society where good can thrive, even if it means getting their hands dirty from time to time. If two truly good people kill each other under these conditions, that is what's called a tragedy, but it doesn't make either bad.

That's why one can't tell good from bad in here. Good must act bad. What matters is when they're outside the box.

Edited (Typo.) 2014-03-19 16:03 (UTC)

Killing each other in a game or struggling against the prison itself is one thing. That in of itself doesn't mean there isn't a difference, even in here. Haven't you noticed?

It may seem there's a noticeable difference but paranoia out there is due caution here.

I wouldn't call it paranoia. Just merely trying to find out who's worth watching and who isn't.

For reasons beyond survival, I'm guessing.

I'm just a simple guard dog.

[There's a few minutes longer of a wait than usual.]

For a single specific prisoner or for the good in general?

For the good of all, of course.

Edited 2014-03-19 18:07 (UTC)

How long have you been here?

one; anonymous

[Text]

anonymous;

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous

[Text]

anonymous