5 ms·

Another point of view: at no time is any human being irredeemable.

by schaefer 8y ago

dgzl 8y ago
This doesn't have the appreciation of nearly enough people in this world.
- grosjona 8y ago
  Too many people in the world appreciate this. The world would be a much better place if fraudsters never got second chances. Look at who is running the world now.
  - 1000units 8y ago
    Amen, brother. A high trust society is bred by religiously killing off the dishonest. "Nice guy" weaklings make the world a much worse place.
    - dang 8y ago
      We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
      - 1000units 8y ago
        You do good work dang, but I think you're being a little overzealous in this specific case. This is the first complaint I've received about my presence here, and in general my comments seem to be well received.
        dang 8y ago
        On second look, yes—a bit overzealous in this case. I've unbanned your account. But can you please follow the basic idea here? if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. If by well-received you mean upvoted, that alas isn't enough to ensure that commenters are following the rules. If it were, HN wouldn't need moderators.
        1000units 8y ago
        Thank you. I'll do my best.
stuartaxelowen 8y ago
The tempting question: would you have shot Hitler at the height of WW2?
- simonh 8y ago
  It doesn't work. All the alternate timelines are worse, usually because Germany has more time to prepare, gets atomic weapons and there's a global nuclear war. That's why the time cops have a permanent covert bodyguard detail on him. Hardest target in history - except maybe the Time Traveller's Ball. Their cordon on that one was pretty tight too.
CamperBob2 8y ago
On what possible objective basis can this be stated as fact?
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  "None." Got it.
grosjona 8y ago
Our economic system happily churns through people like a factory production line. The question is; would you rather give this guy a second chance or give that chance to someone else who hasn't yet had any opportunity to prove themselves (there are many of these)? You give second chances to people who make an honest mistake. This is not an honest mistake. It's fraud. He is rotten at the core. He goes straight in the trashcan.
ggg9990 8y ago
But at some point, it's not worth trying anymore, like a house which is 90% on fire.
ljm 8y ago
As soon as you discard someone as such, you're just basically just consigning them to do even more of the same. Why even bother trying change if you are actively expected to not do any better? It's refreshing to see a viewpoint that doesn't jump straight to throwing bad guys to the wolves.
- stephengillie 8y ago
  Auto-monkeysphering - involuntarily deciding you won't need to think about that person again in the future, reducing the cognitive load of humans to need to care about by one, forever.

Another point of view: at no time is any human being irredeemable.

dgzl 8y ago

This doesn't have the appreciation of nearly enough people in this world.

grosjona 8y ago
Too many people in the world appreciate this. The world would be a much better place if fraudsters never got second chances. Look at who is running the world now.
- 1000units 8y ago
  Amen, brother. A high trust society is bred by religiously killing off the dishonest. "Nice guy" weaklings make the world a much worse place.
  - dang 8y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
    - 1000units 8y ago
      You do good work dang, but I think you're being a little overzealous in this specific case. This is the first complaint I've received about my presence here, and in general my comments seem to be well received.
      - dang 8y ago
        On second look, yes—a bit overzealous in this case. I've unbanned your account. But can you please follow the basic idea here? if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. If by well-received you mean upvoted, that alas isn't enough to ensure that commenters are following the rules. If it were, HN wouldn't need moderators.
        1000units 8y ago
        Thank you. I'll do my best.

stuartaxelowen 8y ago

The tempting question: would you have shot Hitler at the height of WW2?

simonh 8y ago
It doesn't work. All the alternate timelines are worse, usually because Germany has more time to prepare, gets atomic weapons and there's a global nuclear war. That's why the time cops have a permanent covert bodyguard detail on him. Hardest target in history - except maybe the Time Traveller's Ball. Their cordon on that one was pretty tight too.

CamperBob2 8y ago

On what possible objective basis can this be stated as fact?

CamperBob2 8y ago
"None." Got it.

grosjona 8y ago

Our economic system happily churns through people like a factory production line. The question is; would you rather give this guy a second chance or give that chance to someone else who hasn't yet had any opportunity to prove themselves (there are many of these)? You give second chances to people who make an honest mistake. This is not an honest mistake. It's fraud. He is rotten at the core. He goes straight in the trashcan.

ggg9990 8y ago

But at some point, it's not worth trying anymore, like a house which is 90% on fire.

ljm 8y ago

As soon as you discard someone as such, you're just basically just consigning them to do even more of the same. Why even bother trying change if you are actively expected to not do any better? It's refreshing to see a viewpoint that doesn't jump straight to throwing bad guys to the wolves.

stephengillie 8y ago
Auto-monkeysphering - involuntarily deciding you won't need to think about that person again in the future, reducing the cognitive load of humans to need to care about by one, forever.