Quake3World

Julios and I are being hypothetical here. It's likely the guy didn't want to take the mugger's life, and given the adrenaline and 'survival instinct' nature of the situation, that's just how it ended up. We're just saying... under what circumstances would it have NOT been okay to take the mugger's life. If these circumstances apply, like horton seems to believe, then the old guy was in the wrong to take the mugger's life. Whether or not a spoon should be stuck up his ass... is another question.

I understand that. I just don't feel I should have to play along with a certain set of rules. I just happened to have a disagreement with the second statement. I'm not really interested in dissecting every permutation of the situation.

Scourge wrote:I understand that. I just don't feel I should have to play along with a certain set of rules. I just happened to have a disagreement with the second statement. I'm not really interested in dissecting every permutation of the situation.

sigh - you can't disagree with a condition.

Trust me when I say you're completely misunderstanding the point of this exercise

read mjrpes' last post a bit more carefully

mjrpes wrote:under what circumstances would it have NOT been okay to take the mugger's life.

Here's my cynical answer and not the politically correct one that you might be looking for. Personally I can't think of any circumstances. Muggers can and often do ruin people's lives around the world everyday. From stealing someones life savings to beating old women up. They should be automatically disqualified from breathing and if that happens unintentionally, good.

rofl wrote:
They should be automatically disqualified from breathing and if that happens unintentionally, good.

in other words, you would vote for a law which enforced capital punishment for armed robbery/assault.

right?

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Scourge wrote:I understand that. I just don't feel I should have to play along with a certain set of rules. I just happened to have a disagreement with the second statement. I'm not really interested in dissecting every permutation of the situation.

sigh - you can't disagree with a condition.

Trust me when I say you're completely misunderstanding the point of this exercise

read mjrpes' last post a bit more carefully

You don't understand. I'm not participating in your exercise.

Scourge wrote:
You don't understand. I'm not participating in your exercise.

you don't even understand the exercise, so how can you participate in it?

(not trying to be rude here - just making an observation)

[xeno]Julios wrote:

rofl wrote:
They should be automatically disqualified from breathing and if that happens unintentionally, good.

in other words, you would vote for a law which enforced capital punishment for armed robbery/assault.

right?

To be honest, I've never been one for keeping people in prison and wasting tax payers money on killers. I wouldn't vote capital punishment for armed robbery or assault perse, I would only vote capital punishment if someone actually killed an innocent person intentionally and maliciously and not as self defence. But regarding my statement "They should be automatically disqualified from breathing ", that's me being cynical. You obviously can't give capital punishment to someone for stealing their life savings. But at the same time, I smile and turn a blind eye to muggers that get killed unintentionally, who happen to ruin and continue to ruin peoples lives.

thanks for the clarification

I'm not trying to. Let me see if I can explain this. I don't need to understand something I'm not trying to participate in.

I was in a discussion about an old man choking the shit out of some kid. Next thing I know you come in and set down rules and shit then tell me I'm not playing right. I wasn't trying to disagree with a condition to an exercise I wasn't participating in, I was disagreeing with a statement.

seremtan wrote:for once i agree with you

sometimes the force needed to restrain someone can kill them, which i think is what happened here. besides, if there's no risk premium to mugging, it'll happen more often

indeed.

scourge - my first post in this thread was addressed to ROFL (see the first post on page 2 of this thread).

ROFL responded to me.

I responded to him, and you then come in and critique my response in a way which showed you missed the entire line of reasoning (even rofl understood it).

I stand by what I said. It's not the same. Thinking that it's a coincidental blessing is not the same as saying that all muggers should be put to death. He even said so himself later on. I understood what he meant.

Scourge wrote:I stand by what I said. It's not the same. Thinking that it's a coincidental blessing is not the same as saying that all muggers should be put to death. He even said so himself later on. I understood what he meant.

yes and this was clarified later on.

I'm talking about the conditions part of the discussion. But I think we understand each other now

Good enough.

one less dangerous mugger with a gun
why debate this,debate gun control and your misquoted mis-interpreted mis-understood ancient out of date constitution.

lol, here we go

axbaby wrote:one less dangerous mugger with a gun
why debate this,debate gun control and your misquoted mis-interpreted mis-understood ancient out of date constitution.

Debate what aspects of it, exactly? Show us how to bring our country forth into the light, Obi-Wan.

natural selection at it's finest! Wabbit said it best in this thread, GG Old Toughguy.

The mugger got CRUSHED - exactly what he deserved.

And lol @ [primadonna]Boringus.

a mugger dies, who cares?
an armed robber dies, who cares?
isn't that really what it comes down to?

I say lets send this 70 year old ex marine to jail for life for killing a piece of shit!

Hell yeah, thats the answer!

they shouldave put something in the muggers drinck when he wasnt looking




why dont we all cooperate and learn to share and care and compare the mugger to the furah

had the mugger been weaponless, so that they were evenly matched, maybe the old guy overpowers him and sits on the little faggot piece of trash til the cops arrive.
He had a deadly weapon, which makes the underdog come out on top with a perfectly executed 1v1. Good Fucking Game, too bad the good guy didn't always come out on top like this.

imo, we should have a heated debate and discussions over nothing. and then discuss the finer points that dont make much sense, and are not related to the post at all. we shall then accuse each other of not participating in the discussion correctly which shall go up until page 12. after page 12 we will reiterate our debate with useless url posts, a couple of high school physics theories, followed by some english literature rubbish. then we shall all agree that we are faggots.

And don't forget to repeatedly tell everyone that they've missed your arrogant, conceited and worthless points, while boring everyone to death by breaking down and repeating your posts in numerical form.