LogFAQs > #979318535

Kradek posted...

I don't think it really does. Just because the shitstain child isn't in bullying mode 24/7 doesn't mitigate the fact that they likely bullied the victim a day or 2 sooner. Does a domestic abuser stop being a domestic abuser because they're not spending every waking moment beating their victim? Of course not.

And similarly, if a domestic abuse victim willingly served her abuser a drink that had laxative in it, I wouldn't think it would be any different than if he took breaks in-between beating her to take swigs from the altered drink.

A shitty person doesn't stop being a shitty person just because they're not shitty every since waking moment of their life. They are still who they are, and this sack of shit bully is a sack of shit bully.

I'm genuinely unsure how to respond because this almost doesn't seem like a reply to what I posted, so to the second bit I'll say I agree that there's less difference in scenarios you posted, but I don't think your example is actually analgous to this situation at all. The domestic abuse would have to directly cause the ingestion of laxatives (or whatever other retribution), where the offenders choice directly leads to the negative outcome they receive.

And again, to be clear, I'm not siding with or sympathizing with the bully here, I'm noting that there is a minor difference between setting up a situation where an offender gets payback as a direct result of their offense and going out of your way to trick someone into doing something they wouldn't have otherwise.