User talk:Phaedrus/Reinkarmation - Revision history

Phaedrus: Response to WolfyDrake95

2009-08-31T14:58:22Z

Response to WolfyDrake95

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:58, 31 August 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:

	You might want to change the XXX tag to a Violence tag: <nowiki>{{Violence}}</nowiki>. XXX usually means explicit sexual material; Violence is more along the lines of "gore" and "disgusting things" that this story seems to have (no offense). —[[User:WolfyDrake95\|Drake]] 14:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)		You might want to change the XXX tag to a Violence tag: <nowiki>{{Violence}}</nowiki>. XXX usually means explicit sexual material; Violence is more along the lines of "gore" and "disgusting things" that this story seems to have (no offense). —[[User:WolfyDrake95\|Drake]] 14:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
			: Thank you; I was completely unaware of that tag. [[User:Phaedrus\|Phaedrus]] 14:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WolfyDrake95: Justa comment

2009-08-31T14:00:43Z

Justa comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:00, 31 August 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	: And third, I have to admit that I've always had a hard time with the notion that financial crimes -- especially large ones -- are somehow fundamentally different from violent crimes. In a capitalist society, money is just as much a part of a person's wellbeing as their physical health. Suppose that Mr. X works hard all his life, saving his money and living well below his means, so that he can enjoy a dream lifestyle after he retires. And suppose that, on the day that retirement finally arrives, Mr. Y comes along and kills him. Obviously, that would be really really horrible. Now suppose that Mr. Y comes along and steals all his money (and that the money is never recovered). How much less horrible -- and how much less reprehensible -- is this? The golden years Mr. X has worked so hard for are wiped out either way. In one case, Mr. X's life is over on the spot; in the other, Mr. X, who is now too old to work, faces years of poverty and hardship. How much worse is one than the other? How much less reprehensible is it to steal from the vulnerable and defenseless than it is to beat them up?		: And third, I have to admit that I've always had a hard time with the notion that financial crimes -- especially large ones -- are somehow fundamentally different from violent crimes. In a capitalist society, money is just as much a part of a person's wellbeing as their physical health. Suppose that Mr. X works hard all his life, saving his money and living well below his means, so that he can enjoy a dream lifestyle after he retires. And suppose that, on the day that retirement finally arrives, Mr. Y comes along and kills him. Obviously, that would be really really horrible. Now suppose that Mr. Y comes along and steals all his money (and that the money is never recovered). How much less horrible -- and how much less reprehensible -- is this? The golden years Mr. X has worked so hard for are wiped out either way. In one case, Mr. X's life is over on the spot; in the other, Mr. X, who is now too old to work, faces years of poverty and hardship. How much worse is one than the other? How much less reprehensible is it to steal from the vulnerable and defenseless than it is to beat them up?
	: And, of course, having pointed out the horrors of financial crime, note that the story is highly ambiguous here. We know that the vast majority of Scott's stolen money was moved beyond the reach of the investigators. But we don't know when that happened. Did Scott do it himself? Or did the coyote steal it, and leave only a fraction of the innocent victims' money for the investors to find? There's no answer -- though that satellite dish raises questions. I'm only mentioning this as one more case of "If you think you've found anything 'good' in either of the main characters, you may want to look at the story in a different way." 01:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)		: And, of course, having pointed out the horrors of financial crime, note that the story is highly ambiguous here. We know that the vast majority of Scott's stolen money was moved beyond the reach of the investigators. But we don't know when that happened. Did Scott do it himself? Or did the coyote steal it, and leave only a fraction of the innocent victims' money for the investors to find? There's no answer -- though that satellite dish raises questions. I'm only mentioning this as one more case of "If you think you've found anything 'good' in either of the main characters, you may want to look at the story in a different way." 01:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

			You might want to change the XXX tag to a Violence tag: <nowiki>{{Violence}}</nowiki>. XXX usually means explicit sexual material; Violence is more along the lines of "gore" and "disgusting things" that this story seems to have (no offense). —[[User:WolfyDrake95\|Drake]] 14:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Phaedrus: Fixed typo

2009-08-31T01:57:11Z

Fixed typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 30 August 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	: First of all, it was intended as a nasty story. If the victim deserves everything that's coming to him -- if the punishment fits the crime -- then a lot of the nastiness goes away. In fact, the fact that the victim was a criminal at all was a weakness in the story, a concession to my own squeamishness at writing it; I couldn't have written this sort of story about a truly innocent victim.		: First of all, it was intended as a nasty story. If the victim deserves everything that's coming to him -- if the punishment fits the crime -- then a lot of the nastiness goes away. In fact, the fact that the victim was a criminal at all was a weakness in the story, a concession to my own squeamishness at writing it; I couldn't have written this sort of story about a truly innocent victim.
	: Second, the transformer character is pretty clearly psychotic. And sure, he says a lot of stuff about his intentions that could be described as noble. But then again, there's no real evidence anywhere else in the story that what he's saying is true; and he's saying those things to someone he fully intends to double-cross in the worst possible way, in order to build up false hopes. And if we needed any further reason to be distrustful, note that the entire beginning of the story revolves around an elaborate lie set up by this same character. So rather than thinking of this as "punishment", it might be better to think about it as "preying on a predator".		: Second, the transformer character is pretty clearly psychotic. And sure, he says a lot of stuff about his intentions that could be described as noble. But then again, there's no real evidence anywhere else in the story that what he's saying is true; and he's saying those things to someone he fully intends to double-cross in the worst possible way, in order to build up false hopes. And if we needed any further reason to be distrustful, note that the entire beginning of the story revolves around an elaborate lie set up by this same character. So rather than thinking of this as "punishment", it might be better to think about it as "preying on a predator".
	: And third, I have to admit that I've always had a hard time with the notion that financial crimes -- especially large ones -- are somehow fundamentally different from violent crimes. In a capitalist society, money is just as much a part of a person's wellbeing as their physical health. Suppose that Mr. X works hard all his life, saving his money and living well below his means, so that ~~you~~ he can enjoy a dream lifestyle after he retires. And suppose that, on the day that retirement finally arrives, Mr. Y comes along and kills him. Obviously, that would be really really horrible. Now suppose that Mr. Y comes along and steals all his money (and that the money is never recovered). How much less horrible -- and how much less reprehensible -- is this? The golden years Mr. X has worked so hard for are wiped out either way. In one case, Mr. X's life is over on the spot; in the other, Mr. X, who is now too old to work, faces years of poverty and hardship. How much worse is one than the other? How much less reprehensible is it to steal from the vulnerable and defenseless than it is to beat them up?		: And third, I have to admit that I've always had a hard time with the notion that financial crimes -- especially large ones -- are somehow fundamentally different from violent crimes. In a capitalist society, money is just as much a part of a person's wellbeing as their physical health. Suppose that Mr. X works hard all his life, saving his money and living well below his means, so that he can enjoy a dream lifestyle after he retires. And suppose that, on the day that retirement finally arrives, Mr. Y comes along and kills him. Obviously, that would be really really horrible. Now suppose that Mr. Y comes along and steals all his money (and that the money is never recovered). How much less horrible -- and how much less reprehensible -- is this? The golden years Mr. X has worked so hard for are wiped out either way. In one case, Mr. X's life is over on the spot; in the other, Mr. X, who is now too old to work, faces years of poverty and hardship. How much worse is one than the other? How much less reprehensible is it to steal from the vulnerable and defenseless than it is to beat them up?
	: And, of course, having pointed out the horrors of financial crime, note that the story is highly ambiguous here. We know that the vast majority of Scott's stolen money was moved beyond the reach of the investigators. But we don't know when that happened. Did Scott do it himself? Or did the coyote steal it, and leave only a fraction of the innocent victims' money for the investors to find? There's no answer -- though that satellite dish raises questions. I'm only mentioning this as one more case of "If you think you've found anything 'good' in either of the main characters, you may want to look at the story in a different way." 01:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)		: And, of course, having pointed out the horrors of financial crime, note that the story is highly ambiguous here. We know that the vast majority of Scott's stolen money was moved beyond the reach of the investigators. But we don't know when that happened. Did Scott do it himself? Or did the coyote steal it, and leave only a fraction of the innocent victims' money for the investors to find? There's no answer -- though that satellite dish raises questions. I'm only mentioning this as one more case of "If you think you've found anything 'good' in either of the main characters, you may want to look at the story in a different way." 01:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Phaedrus: Response to Alex Warlorn

2009-08-31T01:20:41Z

Response to Alex Warlorn

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:20, 30 August 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Talk about unbalanced punishments (I think, was he planning to kill his marks?) -- Alex Warlorn August 30 2009		Talk about unbalanced punishments (I think, was he planning to kill his marks?) -- Alex Warlorn August 30 2009
			: That's an interesting observation. I'm not sure I can really answer it, because I'm not sure that I can ever really get back into the headspace I was in when I wrote that story. But let me do the best I can...
			: First of all, it was intended as a nasty story. If the victim deserves everything that's coming to him -- if the punishment fits the crime -- then a lot of the nastiness goes away. In fact, the fact that the victim was a criminal at all was a weakness in the story, a concession to my own squeamishness at writing it; I couldn't have written this sort of story about a truly innocent victim.
			: Second, the transformer character is pretty clearly psychotic. And sure, he says a lot of stuff about his intentions that could be described as noble. But then again, there's no real evidence anywhere else in the story that what he's saying is true; and he's saying those things to someone he fully intends to double-cross in the worst possible way, in order to build up false hopes. And if we needed any further reason to be distrustful, note that the entire beginning of the story revolves around an elaborate lie set up by this same character. So rather than thinking of this as "punishment", it might be better to think about it as "preying on a predator".
			: And third, I have to admit that I've always had a hard time with the notion that financial crimes -- especially large ones -- are somehow fundamentally different from violent crimes. In a capitalist society, money is just as much a part of a person's wellbeing as their physical health. Suppose that Mr. X works hard all his life, saving his money and living well below his means, so that you he can enjoy a dream lifestyle after he retires. And suppose that, on the day that retirement finally arrives, Mr. Y comes along and kills him. Obviously, that would be really really horrible. Now suppose that Mr. Y comes along and steals all his money (and that the money is never recovered). How much less horrible -- and how much less reprehensible -- is this? The golden years Mr. X has worked so hard for are wiped out either way. In one case, Mr. X's life is over on the spot; in the other, Mr. X, who is now too old to work, faces years of poverty and hardship. How much worse is one than the other? How much less reprehensible is it to steal from the vulnerable and defenseless than it is to beat them up?
			: And, of course, having pointed out the horrors of financial crime, note that the story is highly ambiguous here. We know that the vast majority of Scott's stolen money was moved beyond the reach of the investigators. But we don't know when that happened. Did Scott do it himself? Or did the coyote steal it, and leave only a fraction of the innocent victims' money for the investors to find? There's no answer -- though that satellite dish raises questions. I'm only mentioning this as one more case of "If you think you've found anything 'good' in either of the main characters, you may want to look at the story in a different way." 01:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

75.41.112.111: Created page with 'Talk about unbalanced punishments (I think, was he planning to kill his marks?) -- Alex Warlorn August 30 2009'

2009-08-31T00:06:24Z

Created page with 'Talk about unbalanced punishments (I think, was he planning to kill his marks?) -- Alex Warlorn August 30 2009'

New page

Talk about unbalanced punishments (I think, was he planning to kill his marks?) -- Alex Warlorn August 30 2009