- Jun 5, 2013
Three instead of two hundred and three is not so bad.JimB said:I don't. Human life is not a math equation, and even if it was, permit me to point out that by killing that guy, there are no longer two dead bodies. There are now three.Abomination said:I don't know about you, but I believe that two lives are more valuable than one life.
That would be just as corrupt as the old one.JimB said:
I'm confused. By saying "intentionally", are you implying that:JimB said:
1) villain in that hypothetical situation have killed someone who is "only" another criminal,
2) or what are you saying is that slaughtered person was at fault for his own death despite not doing anything immoral?
Because he wasn't doing anything illegal? (If he was then disregard that).so why is he more innocent under your paradigm than the villain?
It is "cool" if person that was killed is a murderer himself.JimB said:
Should everyone who was mugged be on trial along with their mugger?JimB said:
JimB said:And the victim intentionally chose to live the kind of life that left him unprepared to survive an attack, so why is he more innocent under your paradigm than the villain?
JimB said:No, it isn't. You're sitting here arguing that killing is cool.
Only a sperglord would fail to see any difference between "villain/criminal is murdering taxpayers left and right", and "hero kills a criminal/villain".JimB said:It takes two to dance.