Machiavellian said:
If I wronged someone and they came for me you would have a case. If I wronged someone and they decided to take it out on my family, why would anyone feel like that would be ok. You are throwing way to many hypothetical what ifs into a basic question. How much wrong would you have to do to someone else that you would feel its justified for someone to take out your family. Lets say you destroyed a person car and as retaliation they decided to take out your family. Why would you care if someone else was indebted to the person asking them to kill your kids. That statement doesn't make sense to the context of the original question since I stated the person asking someone to kill your kids not the person who did the crime. How much context do you need to justify anyone taking out your family. The only way I can view your statement is just another way to not come to a decision. For each question I ask, you keep moving the goal post so you do not have to answer it. Like I said, you are just jerking my chain. |
You just answered why. The fact that I posed those questions, and at least one made you explain how it would make the situation different, is the entire point. You were the one who was talking about how much, if any, would be more at fault between the killer and the person of influence. If the person who commits the act, isn't simply doing it because their a cold blooded killer, but because they stand to lose as much as you, or more, I would personally say that changes their level of fault in the scenario. The question you pose cannot be just a simple basic general question without me giving a simple basic generic answer, and I've already explained I can't do that because I believe it's not the case for every situation.
