neornithes | 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

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?

I'm keeping that information to myself.

Either you're an exception on the network or you've been here less than two weeks. If the latter, that's quite an undertaking, looking out for the good of all, with such little time to establish stability or familiarity yourself.

I'm finding that you're quite knowledgeable but your imagination is quite limited. There are prisoners here that have been here longer than two weeks. There's also staff. Maybe not someone high ranking but there's guards, not to mention other such people that fill jobs that prisoners can't.

[Text]

eraser_rain - 2014-03-19 19:57 (UTC) - Expand

anonymous

bystandering - 2014-03-19 20:10 (UTC) - Expand

eraser_rain - 2014-03-19 20:20 (UTC) - Expand

bystandering - 2014-03-19 21:17 (UTC) - Expand