Shady Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 What's more violent, murdering an unarmed person or breaking some windows? Who was murdered? Quote
GostHacked Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 99.999999999% of the time, it doesn't. Unless one resists arrest. The your odds go down. I think you are incorrect on your numbers. Who was murdered? The person who was arrested. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 A few harmless smacks isn't any big deal. Not like she was actually hurting him or inflicting damage. i don't believe in spanking or hitting/beating but it's just a little wake-up tap. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 Who was murdered?What's more violent? Quote
eyeball Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 A few harmless smacks isn't any big deal. Not like she was actually hurting him or inflicting damage. i don't believe in spanking or hitting/beating but it's just a little wake-up tap.I see Big Guy is suggesting this thread be merged with the How should parents discipline their kids thread. This got me thinking about how people should discipline their governments and Toya Graham's methods. Is there never a point at which even a government could stand a righteous smack upside the head? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Shady Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 What's more violent? In general, probably breaking and burning buildings. One can be murdered in non-violent ways. Quote
Shady Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 I think you are incorrect on your numbers. The person who was arrested. How do you know he was murdered? Do you have the autopsy? Do you know how his injury occurred? Micheal Brown was killed, but he wasn't murdered. Quote
GostHacked Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 How do you know he was murdered? Do you have the autopsy? Do you know how his injury occurred? Micheal Brown was killed, but he wasn't murdered. I'll leave that for the other thread regarding Baltimore. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 In general, probably breaking and burning buildings. One can be murdered in non-violent ways.Really? You think breaking some windows is more violent than killing someone? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 In general, probably breaking and burning buildings. One can be murdered in non-violent ways. I assume you consider the state murdering convicts are some of those non violent ways. Like blindfolding you, tying you up and putting bullet through your heart. Or maybe tying you to a table and inducing a heart attack with an injection of poison. Doesnt sound violent to me at all. Quote
Shady Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 Really? You think breaking some windows is more violent than killing someone? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It depends on how someone is killed. Regardless, your line of questioning is even more dumb, and misses the point of the mother trying to keep her son away from violent and criminal behaviour. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 When one can argue that putting someone to death against their will is not an act of violence, then they've lost all capacity to reason. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 It depends on how someone is killed. Regardless, your line of questioning is even more dumb, and misses the point of the mother trying to keep her son away from violent and criminal behaviour.People who value material things over human life are a detriment to humanity. Quote
Shady Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 When one can argue that putting someone to death against their will is not an act of violence, then they've lost all capacity to reason. Again, who was "put to death"? What does their will have to do with whether something is violent? Regardless, like I've said, dying doesn't automtiaclly equal violence. But again, that has nothing to do with the mother trying to prevent her son from participating in violent and criminal activity. Quote
Shady Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 People who value material things over human life are a detriment to humanity. I don't know who this is directed to. Again, you're missing the point and straying from the topic. Quote
Guest Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 What's more violent: murdering an unarmed person or breaking windows? Are you suggesting then, that a violent response to an act is acceptable, just so long as the response is less violent than the act that precipitated it? How much less? Just a little, or a lot? How would you gauge it? Also, how much scrutiny should be placed on the act itself? Should anyone's opinion as to who did what be okay as a rationale for a violent response, or should there be some kind of legal ruling on the act before a violent response is okay? Quote
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) Again, who was "put to death"? What does their will have to do with whether something is violent? Regardless, like I've said, dying doesn't automtiaclly equal violence. But again, that has nothing to do with the mother trying to prevent her son from participating in violent and criminal activity.I didn't say dying. I said killing someone or breaking a window. You said breaking a window is a more violent act because your arguments push you into completely irrational and absurd places. That you can sit here and say killing someone is a less violent act than breaking a window tells me that you do not have a reasonable argument to make and are not thinking rationally about the topic. No rational person would ever say that killing someone is a less violent act than breaking a window. In your world, people would get life sentences for smashing windows and tickets for murder. Edited April 30, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 Are you suggesting then, that a violent response to an act is acceptable, just so long as the response is less violent than the act that precipitated it? How much less? Just a little, or a lot? How would you gauge it? Also, how much scrutiny should be placed on the act itself? Should anyone's opinion as to who did what be okay as a rationale for a violent response, or should there be some kind of legal ruling on the act before a violent response is okay? Are you making up an argument for me and just trying to argue against it in the form of questions or do you actually have a serious question that you would like me to respond to? Quote
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 I don't know who this is directed to. Again, you're missing the point and straying from the topic.I've not strayed from the topic at all. You responded to the OP about this mother not wanting her son to get involved in the "violence." I'm highlighting your characterization of the ensuing riots as violent, but being so biased that you can't even call killing someone a violent act. I'm underscoring the fact that you value material things, property like windows and cars, far more than you value the lives of people who are put to death in the streets without trial. I'm showing that your bias in this situation is so entrenched that your arguments are completely irrational and unreasonable. What I'm saying is that arguments and particularly biases like yours that put material goods above the lives of people are completely sociopathic and a vulgar affront to humanity. Quote
Guest Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 Are you making up an argument for me and just trying to argue against it in the form of questions or do you actually have a serious question that you would like me to respond to? We can break it down if you want. Are you suggesting then, that a violent response to an act is acceptable, just so long as the response is less violent than the act that precipitated it? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.