Narrative - Invent Subtexts Don't Really Meaning What They Tell.

Invent subtexts don’t really meaning what they tell.

‘Dialogue of the crazy’  peace messages

Samantha: I think that death penalty should be abolished. 

Oliver: What do you mean? Are you saying that it is costly for society? Or are you saying that, it has been around a long time, so, maybe we could zap it now?! I am quite agreeing with this suggestion! We could concentrate on other things, like hunger in the world! 

S: No, what I wanted to say was that, death penalty has implications!

O: Implications? What types of implications? A death?

S: Implications such as the denial of the existence of God!

O: Practicing death penalty make us godless society?

S: You caught the subject matter! We do not have the right to take a human life, it is anti-god!

O: It is true, you are right!

S: What does this gaze communicate? 

O: What gaze? You are only impressing me with your convictions!

S: Your peek just seemed to want to mean something else…

O: I was analyzing that in my head, death penalty is, in actually, a freedom; a privilege! Other countries also possessed this opportunity in the past. They sadly lost it, because of, who knows what motives! The leaders decided to cancel it, and surely for no other reasons than political or financial, and, by doing so, the inhabitants were deprived of one of their prerogatives.

S: What you are explaining is that death penalty is an opportunity that we have, compared to other nations?

O: Beyond a doubt!

S: And what does this difference represent, according to you?

O: A relief! The certainty that a criminal won’t ever be able to hurt again!

S: Excuse me, what do you have in mind when you talk about “hurt”? Affliction, bad actions, wickedness, immorality, cheating, fatal mistake?!

O: Are we still chatting about death penalty? 

S: Why? What else could I be referring to?

O: I understand that you are alluding to something else, chitchat which bodes nothing good. 

S: Well done! Indeed, I was talking about the reasons that led us to divorce!

O: Ah! so that is what the problem was!

S: No, our conversation has to do with death penalty! You see the foundation of my theory!? Who are we to judge and deciding that a man deserves to die!?

O: You are kidding me! 

S: I am extremely serious! Only God has the power to judge a man!

O: Are you hinting at the possibility someone can be punished to death, because of why you were pushed to split-up our marriage?

S: These grounds have associations in my approach!

O: You mix everything up! Brief! Anyway, I have always told you, you are way too emotional!

S: Emotional? You are signifying: emotive; sensitive; sentimental? 

O: No, by this, I am intending: passionate; fanatical; histrionic; hysterical! 

S: Oh, really? In your opinion, our rupture has been the result of my hysteria? Did you get my concept relevant to the death sentence?!

O: Not sure! Can you express yourself a bit more clearly?

S: It is simple! Our separation was the consequence of your vices, and, your abuses…

O: I am sorry to interrupt, but, could you come directly to the connection with capital punishment!

S: I will make you known it! You knew very well what you were doing when you saw other women: you knew I was waiting for you at home, wisely, I called you, and then, you told me that you were at work, while you were in the company of these girls! You were lying to me, consciously, and on purpose! Conclusion, you were not an innocent person!

O: I see your position, however, I consider that the expression “innocent”, and even in common parlance, indicates: ‘a person not guilty of a crime’!

S: Excuse me, but that is not quite correct! In the everyday language, “an innocent” is: ‘someone, having no knowledge of his actions, and having not aimed to cause harm when he did, or said something, figured out, later, as wrong’.

O: That is all very interesting, but the problem is that, the people we decide to get rid of, have, generally, committed grievous tours de force!

S: So what actions you think, should involve a judicial murder??

O: Major crimes!

S: That is to say? Are you insinuating evils like rapes?

O: Absolutely, they are included in!

S: Except rapes within the couple?

O: Totally agree!

S: It was a question!

O: Yes of course, within the couple too! Any types of rapes!

S: You are abominable! You are shameless!

O: Stop! It is you, with all your innuendos who is confusing my brain.

S: Anyway, let me just put into words my thoughts: rapists could very well be innocent people, controlled by impulses!

O: You are imagining paedophiles!?

S: We know these guys need mental health care! They do not need to be locked up in prisons, and still less to be punished to die! Look back, the man sentenced to death in Oklahoma, in 2006, for raping a child, after have being convicted for the same crime before, do not you think this guy should have been followed by psychiatrists, right from the start, rather than released into the wild? And was not his recurrence a proof that he had mental disorders!? In addition, we know full well that these people had mental health issues at the time of their crimes, since the experts mention it in their reports!

O: But we are not social workers!

S: We are not social workers, we are assassins! And we know that our system of death penalty is arbitrary and capricious, since it is used on sick people, or people who did not intend to kill anyone!

O: So, you figure that, we kill innocents?

S: Surely!

O: And these people do not deserve to die?

S: I affirm that we are not gods, and that only a god is proper to claim that someone merits an end of life.

O: We are not gods! In spite of that, we are ordinary people!

S: Who decides what is acceptable or not in a society? 

O: Conventions! 

S: Deceiving his wife is conventional, according to you!? You make me laugh! In my unpretentious opinion, the pain you inflicted on me at the time would have justified a hanging! Did you have health issues?

O: Possibly!

S: You just badly acted, of your entire will! Compared to these men, struck by bad luck and, misfortune, you were not innocent! They were!

O: But you, you are alive; I have not done anything awful or atrocious to you!

S: I presume that now, you are commenting about murders?  

O: Probably! You would say, they are also pure people?

S: I reckon, undoubtedly! It is said that our process of ‘legalized killing’, is fraught with errors!

O: Errors? You mean failures, because their tendency to lock up the innocent and let criminals go? Or, inaccuracies and glitches, because their habits of drawing conclusions, without strong or coherent evidence? Or maybe, bad job, because of police officers are mediocre, and investigations as mediocre as them?! They never managed to find a culprit, before a barbarity; and even after! Scandal makers! All these deaths were the result of non-professional agents, cupidity, or lightness. Or else, omission, because  their tendency to put aside clues, or forgetting facts? Or perhaps, misconception, because a suspicion that only black people have their place on death row! Or falsehood, because the astonishing ability they have always had to obtain confessions from false culprits?

S: On the nose! You have just forgotten: “disbelief “, in God!

O: I appreciate your point! I would like just to add a comment here: personally, I take into account homicides on old women, children, babies, and I am convinced that, almost all verdicts, were legitimate! You hold that individuals, who killed, and took the time to carefully hide the bodies of their victims, so that we cannot find them, were mentally damaged!?

S: Absolutely! Completely disturbed! Our country killed, a while back, for motivations such as: treason, kidnapping with violence, trafficking of large quantities of drugs, hijacking of aircraft, installation of a bombs near buses, espionage, assault by criminals, or, sponsorship of murders of jurors in criminal cases in which the accused were guilty. Do you estimate it was fair?

O: Do you make reference to the reasonableness? If it was understandable?

S: Correct!

O: Depends on what? Sentence to death for drug trafficking in large quantities was probably extreme! Nevertheless, a dispute would be possible on the type of drugs!

S: And abortion?

O: What, abortion?

S: You do not know what is abortion?

O: Yes, it is some women who aborted their child, before their third month of pregnancy!

S: Abortion is women who kill children!

O: Abortion is not killing, it is abortion!

S: This is “the” public controversy! Most people think that abortion should be banned!

O: Hold on a moment, that’s not correct. It is the opposite! My feeling is that abortion symbolizes “liberty”!

S: “Liberty”? You are vocalizing on the “power of choice”?

O: Not at all! I am delivering on “autonomy”: the freedom to decide if yes or no, they want to be mothers! Abandon!

S: What do you mean by “abandon”? Relaxation? Do you mean that thanks to abortion, women can better relax, as they no longer have obligation to be chained to children!? 

O: By no means! I was articulating: “free will”! They have an alternative: take, or, leave it! 

S: In the current state, abortion would rather stand for ‘freedom of leisure’! 

O: Can you verbalize it for me?  

S: Abortion is an open door to fun, to enjoyment and to pleasure! And a carte blanche to easy frolics! 

O: Abortion, especially, represents an evolution for women!

S: I remember the illustrations you put forth to me earlier… I am of the opinion that women abuse this “power of choice”. If they do get pregnant, I think they should go to the end of their childbearing! The government winks at babies’ murders, on the pretext that women have gained more independence, these women should have had the choice to put a condom on that day! And all those who cannot have children and would like adopting; they could carry their pregnancy to term, and get him adopted!

O: What you gave voice was that, Government shut eyes to abortion?

S: For sure! Infants are killed but it pays them no mind; they were human lives! 

O: Government 
takes no notice of that?

S: Truly! It turns a deaf ear on! 

O: Sorry, I just have to disagree with your point: when women get purged, to eject little angels of their bellies, chicks are not humans yet!

S: What do you mean by ‘a purge’? Purification? 

O: Yes! They remove bad effects they are suffering because they have broken their religion or moral law, perhaps they did not just feel well at the idea of ​​giving birth out of wedlock, in behalf of their convictions and moral principles!

S: Of course nestlings are humans! I saw on TV that a baby is alive before the third month! We can hear his heart beating!

O: If you do not mind, I would like to take issue with what you just said: as long as a tadpole has not come out of its mother’s womb, it is not yet a human life! 

S: What is a tadpole? 

O: I meant new-borns!

S: I am afraid I can’t quite agree with your point, if a heart beats, then it is a life! 

O: But the heart is just one organ.

S: An organ that pumps blood in a human you meant!

O: Obviously, since it is basic of an …

S: Forgive me for interrupting, but I must respond to that: it is the core of a human being!

O: Listen! Human being is a person! 

S: You meant higher animal? 

O: I mean human, a mortal!

S: I asked for because, humans are a variety of living beings, called mammals. We are in the same category as mice, dogs, cats, cows, pigs, sheep, monkeys, and any others species that is warm-blooded! 

O: Well, in this case, let us use the term ‘Homo sapiens’! A human being with, a head, some arms, and some legs!

S: You mean earthling?

O: Yes, I mean a living person!

S: Still is it that babies are alive when they are killed! They were living beings, with living souls.

O: That is all very interesting, but the problem is that women cannot keep their babies if they are not ready!

S: That is to say, apt? qualified?

O: Yes, ripes, adults!

S: By that you mean, accomplished, organized, with a stable situation?

O: No, I meant open to, fully grown; at the timely!

S: Your words give me the impression of a pillow talk!

O: That we are gossiping on others?

S: Does our discussion connote something to you?

O: A type of confession, you mean? 

S: Were you arguing about something? 

O: You are right! I was exchanging words about me! 

S: About you! Your personal opinion, or your own experience? 

O: My knowledge! 

S: Going back to our discussion, I think women should be more careful because they are not as free as they would like, unfortunately!

O: Explicate!

S: I recalled the ladies in history, who, -ill-starred-, had nothing to protect themselves, and caught diseases! They would have given anything to have our protections!

O: You are not against the liberation of women then?!

S: I so envy Josephine Bonaparte who had a ton of lovers!

O: In this case, allow me to ask you a question, what do you think about the legalization of sex work?

S: I think that women should be free to give sexual service against money, without fear of being imprisoned!

O: No, my question was about men!

S: Then, in this context, a man should be punished!

O: Wait! We just spoke about the abolition of women’s peculiarity!

S: Yes, if a woman decides to be paid for sex, she should be allowed to do whatever she wants.

O: But if a man would pay for a sexual service, to a woman, who would consent to it, he should be punished?

S: Particularly!

O: Since…?

S: Because he is married, or engaged! 

O: Enough said!

S and O: Laughs!

 

 

 

Facebooktwitterlinkedinby feather

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *