|
|
 | | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
| --snip-- (...) No, that's just reality. It's just that liberal minds take a bit more effort to take it into consideration. (...) Does that mean you support Court by vigilante and death penalty for thievery? Do you really think it's up to the (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
| (...) Generally speaking, this is the idea to which I object. Identifying with bad guys is bad. (...) Is Han really bad? Sure, he undermines the laws of an evil empire, but does that make him "bad"? Shouldn't we resist evil (bad)? (...) I can't (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A shot in the dark
|
| (...) snip (...) I still say it's 7!!! :) Dave K (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A shot in the dark
|
| (...) Well in this case the homeowner was definatly in the wrong. There can be no doubt that he shot without any warning, (otherwise his daughter would have made herself known to him) and thus he can't claim self defence, because he wasn't being (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: SNIPPY (...) Hey , what about the innocent men and the guilty women and children? (I had a strange cultural default twinge there as I typed 'children') SNIPPY Tim (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
