 | | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Not to mention your eloquent gift of good grammar and tongue-in-cheekiness. (...) Well, yeah, that's basically what I meant. (...) And that, my friend, may be one of those "nutshell" differences between a liberal and a conservative. Assuming (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) First off, "sophistimacated" was just a means of letting out some air so that I don't start taking myself too seriously. Let me disclaim that it in this passage I'm speaking specifically of fiction rather than reality. The reason it's more (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Just making sure. Got that one from Duffy, did ya, Dave!? (...) Hold on right there! I wonder why that is the case! And I certainly don't believe it is by Cawinkydink. And if it is so easy, than why would it be restricted to our culture? I (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) And if I may intrude into this here, we have had some wonderful fiction on the telly lately in which what is considered to be 'the bad guy' in the 'tv show universe' is the person we most relate to. Loads of examples, but starting off with (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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: 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.
|
|
(...) Okay, I take it now that we have dispensed fantasy and are now dealing with real life situations. Vigilantism isn't ideal, because there isn't a standard-- that, of course, is the beauty of Law. The problem comes when the law fails to bring (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) It is, as Dave suggested, an entirely cultural notion. Look to untamed nature to see the natural "might makes right" position, where the strongest (whether it be physically, or in terms of mental cunning) survive by killing, maiming, or simply (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) You're supposed to feel sympathy for Darth Vader because right before he redeems himself, we see Luke on the verge of making the same monumental mistake that his father made before him. Of all six movies, that is easily my favorite scene, (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
--snip-- (...) I'd be more sympathetic too, but they're still a murderer. What about someone who has been abused by a partner for many years and lacks the capacity to escape. If they kill that partner in cold blood they are a murderer but I'm pretty (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Agreed. There are still consequences for actions. (...) Hmmm. Very broadly speaking, perhaps. But there are plenty of Conservatives who could easily sympathize with the killer in your example. (...) Well, you are certainly taking a risk by (...) (17 years ago, 10-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
--snip-- (...) Yes I don't doubt it but I think that the basic Conservative position (as opposed to the position of Conservatives) is against it. It becomes an 'exception to the rule' rather than part of a grey spread. (...) Yes. I'm still talking (...) (17 years ago, 10-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I'd say that depends on the society. In the US there is a problem with people mugging Oxycontin(sp?)-dependant people for their prescriptions and mainlining it. It is perhaps more expensive than heroin, and anyone who actually needs it to (...) (17 years ago, 10-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I dug up (URL) some statistics> (page 288- of the PDF) and it would appear that in the US just under one third of drug users are using something other than marijuana. So when talking about high-risk people (those whose actions are a danger to (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I don't know that it's as simple as a black-and-white declaration. If someone is at full mental faculty but is physically incapacitated by constant agony with no hope of relief, how is it noble and compassionate to force that person to (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) You're correct, but that's kind of a dumb law. There's a ton of things that you can do to yourself that you can't do to others without consent, among which tattooing and masturbation are perhaps two of the most obvious examples. Why suicide (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) It's not in that situation, either. It is noble and compassionate to try and comfort and help provide meaning to one in pain and agony. Further, not helping someone kill themselves can hardly be characterized as "forcing" them to live, Dave! (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) The Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States government says that it's wrong to kill anyone, therefore it should be illegal. That does, of course, lead to the obvious question of why they thought it should be a capital crime. I mean, as I (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Yeah, but if the percentage of people who posed an immediate risk to people other than themselves was significantly higher, there would be more political capital to do something about it. Once the public perceives a lack of risk to themselves, (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Vegetable? Mineral? ;-) Tim (17 years ago, 25-Jul-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
