|
|
 | | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
| (...) Well, they did sorta include the reception desk. Sorta. In the first floor, aside from the sliding cage door, there's some sort of computer terminal with a phone and a swivel chair. Not very desk-like, but hey, it's not very asylum-like (...) (17 years ago, 8-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-- (...) 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.
|
| (...) 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.
|
| --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)
| | | | | A shot in the dark
|
| Part of Dave K's post (URL) here> brought this issue to mind and resonated with a recent news story. Here's part of the text of a post I wrote back in 2003. I've isolated it here rather than replying in-thread because I don't want to put any (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
