Quake3World

authorities say forensic evidence [..] corroborated the father's story that his daughter was being sexually molested

GONNAFISTYA wrote:So the asshole diddled the little girl for realz. Sad that a 4 year old had to go through that...hopefully she doesn't remember too much about it for the rest of her life.

U4EA wrote:Could be acting...

GONNAFISTYA wrote:It's too bad the guy got his self-control back too late, but it's obvious he's not a psycho.

For the whoop-whoop thugs here I'm guessing they simply don't understand why that fact is so important.

xer0s wrote:I started a poll to get a better feel of how this forum feels about it...

GONNAFISTYA wrote:So the asshole diddled the little girl for realz. Sad that a 4 year old had to go through that...hopefully she doesn't remember too much about it for the rest of her life.

It's too bad the guy got his self-control back too late, but it's obvious he's not a psycho. For the whoop-whoop thugs here I'm guessing they simply don't understand why that fact is so important.

0psys wrote:I don't want to sound like I'm picking on you here, because I'm not, but I think it's more of the case why you don't understand that it's NOT important.

Whether the guy is a psycho or not doesn't qualify or justify his actions.

Really, it's worth pointing out that the only one who ignored the simple explanation presented in the original story was you. You were the only one holding on to the "psycho" angle in the first place, so if this teaches anyone anything, it should be that perhaps you aren't quite the moral arbiter and bastion of righteousness that you think you are.

seremtan wrote:there's not really enough info the article to draw any conclusions.

GONNAFISTYA wrote: WTF? Now you're completely ignoring everyone's point: nobody here is saying violence isn't sometimes necessary and yes, sometimes it's deserved. What you seem to gleefully ignore is the point at which the violence becomes excessive. I'd hazard a guess that probably 100% of the world's population would agree that, unless death is the intended result, that beating someone close to death is acceptable given the right circumstances.

And I'm sorry...but ffs...the example quoted above from U4EA is utterly retarded. Why? Because I'd guess that the single sociopath with a knife would eventually run into someone like me: someone who doesn't think violence is the first and only response, but will not shy away from violence if pressed. I've clearly stated in the past my beliefs that if someone fully intends to kill you and there's no reasoning with them, then violence to the point of their death is acceptable. Beating someone to death in a fit of rage is not.

You talk about "living in a world that really, REALLY wants to believe that it's civilized, but it's not" and then you point out the fact that you'd love to punch the douche in the assholish t-shirt but don't. I'm sorry, but ffs man...that's exactly what "civilized" means: having violent impulses - because we are animals - but not always acting on them. Nobody is that fucking stupid as to deny humanity's origins and violent tendancies. The ones that DO act on them have something called "antisocial personality disorder" and tend to be uncivilized pretty much every day. You know full-well as anyone here that nearly all laws in every aspect try to mitigate the damage done by psychopaths, to varying success. But if you think that western culture is uncivilized and is not even trying to be then you haven't seen what being uncivilzed means.

And seriously...be anti-government, pro-violence (in the right circumstances) and pro-gun all you want (aim at targets and not people) but if you join a militia and practice shooting FBI agents in the bush then you're probably a fucking nutter. And because I'm sure you aren't a fucking idiot I'm confident you already know this.

Eraser wrote:Nightshade and sys0p are even slower than LawL. I'll say it plainly here: I do have a daughter, so in your views I should be fully qualitfied to talk.

However, I do take offense in the notion that simply because I wouldn't beat a man to death it would automatically mean I do not love my daughter.

I think I'm done discussing this subject with retards like Nightshade and sys0p. Lets just hope you never suspect anyone of harassing your kids, because the poor sod may just end up dead without having laid a finger on anyone.

Nightshade wrote:So, as has already been pointed out, you don't know what pacifist means. Further, I think that the debate (at least at the time you posted this comment) is that we have different opinions on what "excessive violence" means.

Also, you make my point for me perfectly. Your statement about "violence to the point of death is acceptable" is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. A truly civilized society would NEVER, IMO, see that violence of that order was acceptable. So, you trumpet your morals and look down on me and others that share my view for being to eager jump to seriously violent acts, but then what? You turn around and say, in essence, that you'd do the EXACT SAME THING, just for slightly different (and IMO less justifiable) reasons.

Nightshade wrote:When did I say anything about joining a militia or any of that? FFS, you're just babbling.

0psys wrote:No, you'd rebut my point, except it's a good point and there's not really any way to rebut it, given that your first post in this topic is calling the guy a psycho.