Support NeoGAF

[MrAngryFace]

my threads are unpredictable

 

[Drinky Crow]

NLB2, if I were a better troll, I'd offer you lessons. Really, shouldn't the man who brought us "geopolitical penis envy" be a little more advanced in the art than the "jealousy" angle?

 

[Minotauro]

This thread is fucking immune, post away.

You asked for it...

 

[NLB2]

NLB2, if I were a better troll, I'd offer you lessons. Really, shouldn't the man who brought us "geopolitical penis envy" be a little more advanced in the art than the "jealousy" angle?

I thank you for the compliment Master Crow, however I am being completely serious here. It doesn't take a psychologist to realize that MAF has some pretty serious issues, nor does it take a troll to point out that he is, in fact, jealous of a fat, hish school dropout stalker.
Now here's a clip of some Thai boxing for you.
http://www.superleague.tv/videos/06122003/07.rm

:lol :lol :lol
Thanks Mino.

 

[Hitokage]

though the liberals should be countered at every point with the fact that the wrongly imprisoned are a miniscule minority.

SO FUCKING WHAT? The existence of ONE unjust execution makes the criminal justice system no better than the people they are supposed to protect us from, not to speak of any patently bullshit notion of "acceptable losses".

 

[Loki]

One last person in line for the drive-thru at Wendy's?

If I were in a laughing mood, I'd laugh, because that was funny.


But I'm not-- people who agitate for murderers to be released irritate me. It's not even worth discussing, really; to anyone who insists that murderers shouldn't serve a life term, I'd simply say: the blood is on your hands when another innocent gets killed. Your hands, not mine. I truly hope that their idealism holds when it's their daughter or mother who is murdered by a parolee. People are entitled to their opinions, but sometimes they get swept away in idealism, ignoring reality and practical considerations.


Btw, Zelda-Bitch, you can do a search for my views on the prosecution of minors if you like-- there was a thread not a week ago dealing with the same issue. You'll see that I'm not in favor of treating minors (<16 or 17 years old) as adults in criminal matters, even in terms of sentencing.

And what happens when your idealism proves to be misplaced and the innocent wind up executed or imprisoned for life? What happens when your idealism proves to be misplaced and man that could've been reformed is killed?

First off, I made no mention of capital punishment. Secondly, I have never denied that we should have a thorough appeals process that should be flexible enough to allow for new evidence that comes to light down the road. So that's that.


Saying that "an innocent person will perhaps be imprisoned for life" does not in any way change the calculus of the situation with regards to the rights and safety of innocents versus the purported rights of the guilty, and I know that you're smart enough to realize that. Will we ever have an infallible justice system? Of course not. Does that mean that society is not allowed to take the steps necessary to protect its citizens? Sounds like a dubious argument to me...

I'm sorry if the fires of righteous wrath feel better than the frost of reluctant mercy, but in the end, it's not call that can be made using a convenient template, and it is better to err on the side of misguided forgiveness than the side of fallible judgment.

While it may feel nice to try to paint those who disagree with your ill-considered "let's free murders, d00d!" stance as being beholden to emotion rather than reason, it's also a thinly disguised ad hominem on your part. "Wrath" has nothing to do with my stance-- it's merely a cost-benefit analysis. Sorry if it bothers you that people can feel differently than you do based entirely on rational considerations. The crux of my stance is presented above; I can lay it out more explicitly for you if you like.


Your invocation of religious rhetoric was amusing also, as you apparently cannot tell the difference between God's forgiveness (in an ultimate sense) and what is proper for man (i.e., human society) to do in seeking justice based on biblical precepts (which was the context that you, not I, were arguing from). God (and Jesus) urge forgiveness, yet-- amazingly-- they also advocate the rule of law and consequences for certain actions for the good of society. There's no contradiction there; "forgiveness" is something we do with our hearts, not necessarily something we're to do with our hands (in releasing murderers from prison).

it is better to err on the side of misguided forgiveness than the side of fallible judgment as a long-term policy.

False dichotomy. So long as our "policy" as a society has mechanisms in place to correct itself should fallibility be determined (e.g., the appeals process), one should err on the side of judgment due to the severity of, and permanence of, the consequences (i.e., the possible murder of innocents). You can't just assert fallibility in order to "prove" your argument. The fact is that life imprisonment is an entirely reversible sentence should innocence be proven.


So, to use your words, we have "misguided forgiveness" which has possibly tragic consequences on the one hand, and "fallible judgment", which has mechanisms to correct itself should it be shown to have been in error, on the other hand (note: not just "you're guilty" and we throw away the key forever). Seems that the choice is clear.

We can't set the baseline for our justice on the worst case, and measure the fallen against that bar.

For certain egregious offenses such as murder? Sure we can. You've provided no reasoning as to why we can't except for your own idealism.

We hafta treat each man and woman -- and especially children -- as though they have the capacity for reform, and then pursue it in earnest, not convenience

For everything except murder and pedophilia-- and especially for juvenile offenders-- I'm all for it, as I've stated in numerous topics. So we're on the same page except for certain circumstances on which I will not budge.

Most of you don't have the balls to do that, though; it's easier to simply kill and declare it justice, in which case you really aren't that different from the murderer at all save that you have the social advantage of going second.

Again, I made no mention of capital punishment. And I seriously doubt that my belief that murderers should not be released (note: not that they should not be rehabilitated-- educated, counseled etc.-- but just that they should not be released barring exculpatory evidence) has anything to do with me not having any "balls" to do rehab the "right way" (read: the Doug way).

Punishment wed to forgiveness is the most difficult path to act on, and may never be as conveniently rewarding, but it is the right one. Mercy, chumps!

Sure, except in certain cases.


I'm done arguing this. In an ideal world (read: the world I'd personally create), we'd have ample educational and vocational training, and adequate familial and community support systems in place so that murder would be comparatively rare. In that sense, this issue is a minor one when considered within my personal philosophy. I just don't consider it proper that a guilty man be allowed to decide the fate of an innocent man simply because we as a society refused to act in our own best interests (and society's best interests always involve protecting the rights and safety of innocents-- i.e., those who honor the social compact-- above the alleged "rights" of transgressors). And please spare me the metadiscussion of what society's "best interests" truly are.

 

[Spike Spiegel]

 

[MrAngryFace]

I too was appauled at the 'acceptable losses' statement.

 

[Zaptruder]

how does it show a spiral of bloodlust when I can't kill? you are arguing that is allows people to feel justified in their killing and I am asking you why I don't feel a justification for me to kill? You argue that it changes society, but again I ask why don't other people in this thread kill then out of that justification. It is couch theory that has no more basis in reality than saying dungeons and dragons directly causes people who play it to become violent.


and who pays for this. why should I pay for a serial killers remaining 45 years of life?

I'm not saying that it will make the common man more likely to kill. What I am saying is that it makes the common man more accepting of killing for lesser and lesser reasons. YOU don't have to kill, to contribute to a cycle of bloodlust. Pretty soon, you have people cheering for a guy that uses his vehicle for homicide, after defending himself and his daughter from that person.

As for why you should pay for the serial killers life... well, because you pay more for his death, with the same results to you; i.e. he's kept away from you and the rest of society.

 

[borghe]

I'm not saying that it will make the common man more likely to kill. What I am saying is that it makes the common man more accepting of killing for lesser and lesser reasons. YOU don't have to kill, to contribute to a cycle of bloodlust. Pretty soon, you have people cheering for a guy that uses his vehicle for homicide, after defending himself and his daughter from that person.

but again that doesn't apply to me, or to many other people here. it doesn't apply anywhere near you guys yet you are in a society that incoporates the death penalty (in certain states). As I said, that is great debating that in a room full of professors, but the reality of the situation is that you and I are not anymore inclined to commit OR CONDONE violence simply because some states (not even mine) have capital punishment.

As for why you should pay for the serial killers life... well, because you pay more for his death, with the same results to you; i.e. he's kept away from you and the rest of society.

This is not true of capital punishment, just the way it works in our country. I guarantee you after someone has been found guilty and is out of appeals, the cost of a single bullet to the head and either the $200 to ship him to his family or the 15 miuntes you rent the backhoe for to dig his grave is less than him being incarcerated for the next 40 years.

 

[Loki]

I also find it amusing that everyone is (rightly) castigating borghe for his "acceptable losses" comment re: capital punishment, yet are blind to the fact that this very same argument is implicit in the notion of rehabilitating and releasing murderers (i.e., there will be innocents murdered by released convicts, but these are "acceptable losses" when measured against our other concerns/priorities, be those priorities our personal notions of "justice", "ethics", what have you). Consistency would seem to dictate that we take a hard look at both rationales to determine their propriety.

 

[WasabiKing]

I went to work sick for the past 6 days. I find it comforting that others may now share my illness. Strength in numbers! Work as a team to battle this cold!

I so hate people like you. STAY HOME, SICKIE!

 

[Zaptruder]

but again that doesn't apply to me, or to many other people here. it doesn't apply anywhere near you guys yet you are in a society that incoporates the death penalty (in certain states). As I said, that is great debating that in a room full of professors, but the reality of the situation is that you and I are not anymore inclined to commit OR CONDONE violence simply because some states (not even mine) have capital punishment.


This is not true of capital punishment, just the way it works in our country. I guarantee you after someone has been found guilty and is out of appeals, the cost of a single bullet to the head and either the $200 to ship him to his family or the 15 miuntes you rent the backhoe for to dig his grave is less than him being incarcerated for the next 40 years.

How doesn't it apply to you? You've already said that you're willing to see innocent people die as part of an acceptable loss, in order to kill guilty ones... When killing them gets you nothing, but extra expenses as well as some dead innocents. Lets see what else you would agree with in terms of killing? Perhaps I think it would be ok to kill some guy that raped my daughter and left her crippled? I wouldn't actually do it, but then they'd be a good number of like minded people out there... but then the chances increase that there is a person that would kill in such a retaliatory fashion.


As for the way it works in your country, you should be happy that there's some sanity left in the judicial system; the death penalty is no small issue, it's not something to be easily determined; the major cost in a death penalty isn't in the execution or keeping them locked up in a special area, it's the legal costs. Do you wish for these costs to be eliminated? If so, do you wish to also execute them in less than a week, as well as charge the family of the executed for the bullet?

 

[Hitokage]

I wouldn't want olimario in my home, but I don't believe he's a murderer.

I also find it amusing that everyone is (rightly) castigating borghe for his "acceptable losses" comment re: capital punishment, yet are blind to the fact that this very same argument is implicit in the notion of rehabilitating and releasing murderers (i.e., there will be innocents murdered by released convicts, but these are "acceptable losses" when measured against our other concerns/priorities, be those priorities our personal notions of "justice", "ethics", what have you). Consistency would seem to dictate that we take a hard look at both rationales to determine their propriety.

One could argue that simply because somebody hasn't committed a crime yet is no reason to gamble the risk of that person committing harm to others in the future, you know.

 

[levious]

WHY DO YOU WANT TO RUN THE RISK OF RELEASING SOMEBODY WHO HAS MURDERED BEFORE?
Why is it wrong that I hold the view they never be released?

it's not neccesarily wrong... you'd just fit in better in some other country that doesn't hold freedom and liberty so close to its heart.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

The death penalty has no position in a system designed for rehabilitation. It's only ever justified by saying that whomever is utterly incapable of being rehabilitated. However, that quite simply can never be the case. It can only be deemed unlikely or improbable, and were these qualifiers enough to justify the death penalty, then ... well shit.

 

[Zaptruder]

I also find it amusing that everyone is (rightly) castigating borghe for his "acceptable losses" comment re: capital punishment, yet are blind to the fact that this very same argument is implicit in the notion of rehabilitating and releasing murderers (i.e., there will be innocents murdered by released convicts, but these are "acceptable losses" when measured against our other concerns/priorities, be those priorities our personal notions of "justice", "ethics", what have you). Consistency would seem to dictate that we take a hard look at both rationales to determine their propriety.

Hey, the losses either way will be unacceptable; but at least, you'll be helping set some people right, as well as not been responsible directly for those losses, as well as not condoning death in any form, institutionalised or not.

Moreover, you can practice better risk management; cases assessed on risks, depending on the best profiling that we have feasibly available, then set the bar for entry back into society dependent on the risk levels. Of course the highest risks are life sentenced without chance of parole. (and this is what they do anyway. hah)

 

[Fresh Prince]

Battle of the Attention Whores.

 

[NLB2]

One could argue that simply because somebody hasn't committed a crime yet is no reason to gamble the risk of that person committing harm to others in the future, you know.

But to think a person without a history of violence is as likely as a person with a history of violence to be violent in the future is stupid, and you're not stupid, Hitokage, so you don't actually believe that argument you wrote is worth a damn.

 

[Zelda-Bitch]

the point here you are failing to highlight is that you made the concious decision not to kill him. whether chicken or calling yourself a chicken is just an excuse for not having it in you to kill someone, you made the choice to not kill him.

had you made the choice to kill him, something tells me you wouldn't be here talking about it because you would without question be an entirely different person than you actually are.

but, to your point in general, no, I wouldn't have even found you guilty. case by case. everything has to be looked at case by case.

Well this is at least a more respectable answer then some would give. I can somewhat agree with this. However, I would hate for someone to decide whether I live in prison forever or die based on something I did as a 13 year old(if hypothetically I did kill my step dad). An age I now know for sure that I couldn't even begin to understand the things I know now about life. Having someone who knows nothing about me attempt to assume the way I'll be as an adult is just dumb to me.

btw- I truely believe in my heart if my mother stayed in that situation much longer I would have killed that prick. I also believe the only thing that would change about me afterward is I'd feel plenty of guilt for a long long time.

 

[Zaptruder]

But to think a person without a history of violence is as likely as a person with a history of violence to be violent in the future is stupid, and you're not stupid, Hitokage, so you don't actually believe that argument you wrote is worth a damn.

Umm. Winky face. Read in between the lines before insulting. Learn to comprehend before making a fool of yourself.

 

[NLB2]

Umm. Winky face. Read in between the lines before insulting. Learn to comprehend before making a fool of yourself.

The wink was as in "Oh, I came up with a clever argument" and I certainly didn't insult anyone. Why don't you just plain old read before making a fool of yourself .

 

[Drinky Crow]

"Wrath" has nothing to do with my stance-- it's merely a cost-benefit analysis. Sorry if it bothers you that people can feel differently than you do based entirely on rational considerations.

"Rational" considerations being a marked slant favoring sympathy for the innocent? (Not that my sympathies don't usually lie with the innocent; I'm just pointing out that you really haven't consistently backed the rational horse, here.) I'm not buying your cost-analysis hand-waving, either; I don't see anywhere in the Bible that suggests we should run the numbers when it comes to the execution of justice and mercy. Putting lives at the mercy of percentage points and decimal places seems -- well -- very capitalist of you. On the other hand, until I can get some REAL numbers that can be successfully applied to ALL cases, I'm gonna run with the completely subjective "forgiveness" angle.

As for rendering unto Caesar's what is Caesar's, I'd never thought I'd find you so avidly on the side of the dude with the olive-leaf 'do. There's a difference between obeying the laws of the land and actively playing the role of Caesar yourself, and I'm frankly baffled that you conflated the two.

You've complained that doing the right thing and seeking proper rehabilitation is too difficult and too idealistic to be practical. Congratulations: welcome to a compromised morality! (You can have a seat between me and Mandark.)

 

[Soybean]

I so hate people like you. STAY HOME, SICKIE!

Haha. You'd hate me hardcore. I never or very rarely use sick days for sickness. I usually use sick days for screwing around, or for when I didn't finish homework (for graduate school). I should probably be home in bed right now, actually.

 

[Hitokage]

I was being facetious, which is what I usually use the wink for. In no way do I honestly believe that we should start pre-emptively locking up people, but I did want to illustrate that arguing about "risk" can be taken too far.

 

[Teknopathetic]

So wait, did NLB2 just stick his foot in his mouth if Hito's post was facetious and not "I came up with a clever argument"?

 

[NLB2]

I was being facetious, which is what I usually use the wink for. In no way do I honestly believe that we should start pre-emptively locking up people, but I did want to illustrate that arguing about "risk" can be taken too far... and that's all I have to contribute to that specific point.

Ok, so then to that other guy, I was wrong about the wink, but I was right about Hitokage not being stupid.

So wait, did NLB2 just stick his foot in his mouth if Hito's post was facetious and not "I came up with a clever argument"?

I think I stuck my foot in my mouth :lol, although I am still curious as to how I insulted anyone.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

it's not neccesarily wrong... you'd just fit in better in some other country that doesn't hold freedom and liberty so close to its heart.

What country is that.

 

[Malakhov]

After reading this thread I've came to conclusion that Olimario is one sick motherfucker. Sad to see there's still idiots like him running around in 2005.

 

[Orin GA]

Ive never called in at work. I hate when people call in for the tiniest shit and you have to handle their work load. And ill be dammed if I do something like that to the few of the other co workers that work as hard as well.

 

[Loki]

One could argue that simply because somebody hasn't committed a crime yet is no reason to gamble the risk of that person committing harm to others in the future, you know.

Sure, one could argue that, but it would be foolish to do so.


Most sensible people can see the difference between that statement/scenario and either of the scenarios being discussed (the mistaken death of innocents via capital punishment and the murder of innocents by parolees). One is speculative; one has been shown to actually exist. Further, the speculation involved in stating that paroled convicts will kill again is not the same as the speculation involved in pulling a random person off the street and locking him up on the off chance that he might commit murder in the future. In the latter case, you have no information regarding the psychological/social functioning of that individual; in the former, you have visible, direct evidence regarding same. One is an informed decision, the other is not.


It is for this same reason (i.e., evidence of impaired functioning) that I support aggressive psychological interventions for youths and others who exhibit certain antisocial tendencies, so that you can attempt to correct whatever faulty thought processes or neurochemical imbalances they may have before they commit more serious offenses. By analogy with the situation described earlier, would it be sane to assert that our choices with regards to such interventions should be limited to: A) all citizens must undergo such interventions; or B) we are not justified in having any of them participate in these interventions? Of course that would not be sensible, and is, in essence, a false dilemma; the argument you've made above (however jokingly) is similarly tenuous.

but I did want to illustrate that arguing about "risk" can be taken too far.

Anything can be taken too far; that does not mean that we should not make sensible, reasonable judgments about things based upon the available evidence.

"Rational" considerations being a marked slant favoring sympathy for the innocent? (Not that my sympathies don't usually lie with the innocent; I'm just pointing out that you really haven't consistently backed the rational horse, here.)

Huh? Yes, a rational analysis of the relative value of an innocent versus a guilty life will, in most instances, conclude that the innocent life is worth more to society. Not intrinsically (to sidestep the question of evil and/or morality), but in terms of social utility and cost. One of these people definitely function optimally right now, and the other would only have a chance of functioning optimally at a great financial cost to society; further, even if we hold that a rehabilitated life is worth striving for regardless of financial cost (a statement that I would agree with, all else being equal, as evidenced by my post before regarding the technology to incapacitate a parolee), it is not worth striving for given the possible social costs in terms of the innocent lives lost.


How is it rational to assert that a person who has committed murder is absolutely equivalent in every way (in terms of moral worth, value to society etc.) to a person who has never flouted the law? If that's the case, then how would one go about not being equivalent in your eyes? To insist that there are no rational distinctions that can be made, within reason, between certain classes of people, is beyond my comprehension. Am I saying that we treat murderers like animals and torture them? No, of course not. I'd actually totally reform the prison system, myself, so that there was none of this rape and assault bullshit; isolation is punishment enough. Hell, I'm even in favor of rehabilitation for murderers despite the fact that I don't want them released simply due to humanistic concerns (i.e., I believe in giving people a chance at personal redemption, sanity, and fulfillment in whatever measure is possible).

I'm not buying your cost-analysis hand-waving, either; I don't see anywhere in the Bible that suggests we should run the numbers when it comes to the execution of justice and mercy

Actually, if you must know, from my on examination and reflection on the issues of biblical justice and morality, it has become apparent to me that Judeo-Christian morality is, at base, a functional morality in a utilitarian sense. You're correct in noting that the cost-benefit underpinnings of said morality are seldom made explicit (though in some cases they are), but when one truly comprehends the fullness of the "system" being espoused, one can infer certain things about its possible justifications. The point being that biblical morality is, at base, functional-- at least in my estimation. Yes, it's essentially morality by fiat, given the medium/purported source, but assuming that the proposition "God exists" is true, and that He communicated with us through the Bible (assumptions which I hope will be granted for argument's sake), it would stand to reason that He would have a consistent rationale for insisting on certain rules of conduct for both individuals and society.


To tacitly suggest that just because the Bible doesn't contain an academic cost-benefit analysis of its moral precepts, it cannot (and does not) have social utility as its basis, is a hollow argument.


Further, who said that I was basing my beliefs in this sphere on biblical mandates? You were the one who invoked biblical injunctions (to Olimario), not I. I was merely responding to the fact that you seem to be picking and choosing which parts of biblical doctrine to employ in your argument in an inconsistent (I'd say disingenuous, but I know you're not a bad guy ) manner.

As for rendering unto Caesar's what is Caesar's, I'd never thought I'd find you so avidly on the side of the dude with the olive-leaf 'do. There's a difference between obeying the laws of the land and actively playing the role of Caesar yourself, and I'm frankly baffled that you conflated the two.

I wasn't the one who made the "render unto Caesar" comment, so I'm not sure why you're addressing this to me. If you feel that this comment relates to what I've said somehow, then I'm a bit confused as to how, and would ask that you please clarify.

You've complained that doing the right thing and seeking proper rehabilitation is too difficult and too idealistic to be practical. Congratulations: welcome to a compromised morality! (You can have a seat between me and Mandark.)

Again, I never made any such comments. Would "true rehabilitation" be difficult to implement? Sure. But what is "true" rehab? It would seem that it would be "the best that we can do currently"-- is that correct? My point is that regardless of how good a job we do, people will recidivate, and innocents will die. So it's not that I feel that "true rehab" wouldn't be "practical" (in terms of effecting the desired outcome-- i.e., true rehabilitation and a lack of recidivism-- a majority of the time), but rather that the costs in those instances where it did not achieve what it set out to accomplish would outweigh whatever good could possibly come of it. That's just how I see it.


Regardless, I didn't make these comments in the first place; perhaps you were responding to a few people at the same time?

 

[Drinky Crow]

I was -- as is my practice -- addressing the thread at large, using your remarks as a launch point. *You* know when my comments apply to you and when they don't, I figure.

 

[Willco]

Drawn by four African-American 10-year-old's before Olimario put them to death for stealing candy bars...

 

[Drinky Crow]

I want that as a bumper sticker.

 

[Loki]

I was -- as is my practice -- addressing the thread at large, using your remarks as a launch point. *You* know when my comments apply to you and when they don't, I figure.

Oh, ok. Sorry, I didn't realize (due to the fact that you quoted me). Cool.

 

[Orin GA]

If someone gunned down my loved ones, in cold blood, or for something as petty as cash, hell yeah Id like em dead.

Personally I think that alot of people who cry "no death penalty" would change their mind in a heart beat if this happened. to them.

 

[Willco]

Anger and emotions should run our actions? If so, then the entire planet would be rubble if people listened to you.

 

[Orin GA]

Sorry. But I believe in the eye for an eye. If you dont want to be killed, then dont kill others.

BTW, Im not talking about kids here. Im talking about adults who know very well what they are doing.

 

[Loki]

Also, Doug, the fact that I would have no problem with releasing murderers after rehabilitation provided that we had technology which would incapacitate an ex-con as soon as a violent impulse overtook him should be evidence enough that my views are not at all based on "wrath", but rather on practical considerations (i.e., a cost-benefit analysis); if they were motivated purely by vengeance, then I'd say to let 'em rot regardless, rather than allowing them to try their hand at leading a productive life.

 

[Drozmight]

Olimario just hates fat kids.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Loki: my comments about "wrath" targeted borghe and the "eye for an eye" thunder-and-brimstone set. See above post.

 

[Loki]

I see. Yeah, some of the other comments I figured weren't directed at me (e.g., "render unto Caesar"), because I had seen comments from other posters to that effect as I was skimming the thread; the wrath stuff, however, I figured was directed at me (third paragraph of post #119), since it's commonly believed that anyone who takes somewhat of a hard line on crime is motivated primarily by vengeance. Anyway, cool.

 

[NLB2]

Olimario just hates fat kids.

You want to fuck his girlfriend, don't you

 

[fart]

this is just a note for me to go through this thread later and read it, because it's clearly gold

 

[Triumph]

This thread is like exhibit X as to why Olimario sucks at life.

 

[Drozmight]

You want to fuck his girlfriend, don't you

Mmmmm....






yes.

 

[NLB2]

This thread is like exhibit X as to why Olimario sucks at life.

I dunno man, he seems to be doing pretty well for himself.

 

[Triumph]

I dunno man, he seems to be doing pretty well for himself.

Looks are deceiving. One day he'll wake up and realize that his dog has the mange, he got kicked out of highschool, he's never thought for himself and that his girlfriend has been sleeping with Miguel because Oli wanted to "save himself for marriage". Oh, and that Nintendo sucks.

 

[Boogie]

Naw, I never call in sick, I'm a trooper like that.....

....wait, this thread isn't really about employment-affecting illness at all is it?

I HAVE BEEN DECEIVED

 

[NLB2]

Looks are deceiving. One day he'll wake up and realize that his dog has the mange, he got kicked out of highschool, he's never thought for himself and that his girlfriend has been sleeping with Miguel because Oli wanted to "save himself for marriage". Oh, and that Nintendo sucks.

So you do, in fact, want to fuck Olimario's gf. Its pretty amazing how all of the Olimario hate is really nothing more than the manifestation of subconcious jealousy. You want to be rich, you want to be nice and thin, you want to be a high school dropout and not give a damn, because, I'll say again, you're rich. You want to have an attractive girlfriend, you want to be happy, even if the means of happiness are something such as religion. Its ok, Raoul, you can admit being jealous - there's no shame in it, many other posters here are jealous of Olimario.