Quake3World

0psys wrote:You have now admitted that you can imagine yourself going over the top in such a situation.

Hey look, I already did on page 1

Oh and I missed something I guess. I thought this was about the moral implications of this whole issue, not about whether or not someone was capable of doing so, because apparently, someone is (hence the existence of this thread)

I think others were arguing on the moral implications, but I wasn't paying too much heed to it. In fact, I'm not sure I've mentioned morals until my last post.

Could be wrong though, I may have argued it as an aside.

My only angle on this has been as someone who understand how a man could take things that far.

lol sys0p is proud because he knows what it takes to beat a man to death.

What a fucking psycho.

I'm assuming it takes lots of beating.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:RAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Come on, man, fun's over. Time to grow up a bit. You've been posting on this forum for over a decade; you'd think in that time you'd have grown a thicker skin. Not everything you disagree with has to be treated like it's a direct affront to your ego.

You're under the assumption I'm actually debating the original topic...or even caring what you type.

But props to you for "having what it takes".

For someone who doesn't care, you sure do stamp your feet a lot.

Cheers for the props man, it's good to get some recognition.

While this has been fun reading, I think I need to add something in, for no real reason other than this has been an interesting “debate” and feel that my opinion will add no real weight to either argument, but might sort of tie the 2 opposing opinions together a little…perhaps.

Basically what is being said by all parties involved is that if someone’s child was touched inappropriately by someone, the anger felt by the parent would be pretty much incontrollable. I do not have kids, but I have 2 cats, one of which someone shot with an air rifle, nearly killing her. I fully appreciate she is just a cat and not a child, but having had her since she was 8 weeks old I have grown quite emotionally attached to her. I was livid enough to have hit (probably repeatedly) whoever did it, should I have seen the person who did it. I have this emotional connection with a cat I have “raised” so I cannot even begin to imagine the sort of bond you would have with a child, someone you have brought into the world. Someone who is a part of you. The acts you would commit to ensure the safety of that child go beyond anything you can rationally think about. There are stories of mothers who literally tear doors of cars to get their kids after a car accident etc. so something primal does take over and all rational thought goes out of the window. You are willing to put yourself in circumstances you know you would never do in sound mind because you are hardwired to protect your offspring.

In short, it is entirely rational to expect and accept irrational behaviour when your children are involved with/in someone/something that could cause them physical and/or emotional distress.

Lots of morons in this thread...as usual...

I win, next...

wow, this thread

i don't have kids, but i have friends who do, and from what i've seen the connection between them and their kids is at bottom very much a primal, animal thing (i.e. beyond morality). i've no idea what that connection feels like, but i think i understand what it *is*, so i totally 'get' where someone is coming from when they say they'd carry out all manner of bloody violence to protect their kid(s) if necessary

what's wrong with pacifism as a doctrine is that it tries to moralise that which cannot be moralised (the animal thing), and having moralised it, condemn it

fuck that

in a world where people do what they want and say

sorry!

after

i think anybody pedoing should get shock collar and sent in to melted down reactor duty.

at least the guys dead now and wont be continuing!

Memphis wrote:and that from someone who lacks the basic confidence to even speak down a microphone playing a computer game. Way to be a delusional, dim midget

I can't remember the rules here for posting fucked up shit, but I just happened across this video completely by chance a few seconds ago, and it perfectly sums things up.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82560891/

Eraser wrote:

0psys wrote:You have now admitted that you can imagine yourself going over the top in such a situation.

Hey look, I already did on page 1

Oh and I missed something I guess. I thought this was about the moral implications of this whole issue, not about whether or not someone was capable of doing so, because apparently, someone is (hence the existence of this thread)

What sort of morals ?, you talking about your own views ?, taking or beating another mans life out of him ? in which case I completey understand, or the way social morals will break down if laws arent created/followed ?, or morals that society create ? (like its ok to rob from the rich and give to the poor despite it being illegal)

pretty messed up vid n all that, thats pretty much the scene in the film I saw that I mentioned back on page 1

0psys wrote:This isn't a moral discussion.

0psys wrote:I can't remember the rules here for posting fucked up shit, but I just happened across this video completely by chance a few seconds ago, and it perfectly sums things up.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82560891/

That's outright justice in motion.

Mogul wrote:

0psys wrote:This isn't a moral discussion.

Understanding why something like this could happen and even thinking it was acceptable or not doesn't mean I've made a judgement on the morality behind the issue. So no, it's not a discussion of morals, it's a discussion of justification. So more ethics, actually.

0psys wrote:I can't remember the rules here for posting fucked up shit, but I just happened across this video completely by chance a few seconds ago, and it perfectly sums things up.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82560891/

5 years probation. that sounds a lot like a "we're right there with you gary, but we have to give you something, even if only for the sake of appearances" type of deal

Most definitely. It's a public-opinion sentence. 99% of people would sympathise with that guy; the other 1% can only be found on internet forums.

The irony is, under Texas law, if he had a gun and shot the guy when he saw him molesting his daughter, there would be absolutely no charges. It's self defense of molestation. But since the guy beat him with his fists, there's a possibility of charges being pressed...

0psys wrote:Most definitely. It's a public-opinion sentence. 99% of people would sympathise with that guy; the other 1% can only be found on internet forums.

funny thing about the internet...you can get anything from utter trolling to the absolute truth without having the risk of being judged by retarded peers in your immediate vicinity.

Enjoy your 1% fagmatron

An update...

http://www.theolympian.com/2012/06/19/2 ... leged.html

Looks like we're right. I'm glad he was beaten to death. Happy even.