...I don't even know why I'm going to argue this...
emeraldrafael said:
Besides, its what my uncle taught me, and its what they taught him in the marines.
You know why that might be?
Because the Marines are a branch of the United States military and their job is to enter situations in which people are trying to kill them! They fight to kill because if they don't, they'll die! Going overseas to fight wars and protect the citizens of your nation is just
slightly above "fight the schoolyard bully" on the totem poll of "force needed to end conflict". You're essentially telling someone to gouge someone in the temple with a car key because, what, he stole someone's lunch money? Seriously dude, get help if you don't see what's wrong with that statement.
Someone who's beaten won't be challenging another person anytime soon, especially if you won convincingly enough. It's an ego bust and that's all. Lethal force (and that's exactly what you've condoned, in detail no less) is reserved for
last case scenarios in life threatening situations! Fighting to kill is indirectly telling this guy to kill whoever he's fighting. If you need to break five bones in a man's body to make him feel threatened by you, you
really need to learn how to handle yourself better, because there are far more efficient and less dangerous ways of doing that.