Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon
Which establishes the MO here of: that person may have criminally abused others; but, they were nice to me so we can still be friends.
|
Sure. Right, exactly. And so what?
We behave this way all the time. Lots of people have been convicted of crimes, and are later befriended. So what? Restrict the pool of possible friends to perfect, flawless people?
It seems you want the reader of your post to infer that a criminal conviction is grounds for permanent disassociation--or permanent condemnation.
It seems you want to keep at least this conversation very narrowly focused on his crimes. That's cool, if that's what interests you the most, but it seems that anonymous has a wider range of aspects of this person that are important, including friendship-worthiness and an informed understanding of the person's past, likely among other aspects. No person is only the sum of their criminal convictions. Choosing to qualify or disqualify a person as a possible friend usually includes a lot more than that.