By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 07 November 2018
Edit Thread
EricHiggin said:
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.

You sure I answered why.  You gave so many excuses, I thought I would narrow down your rational to get you to actually make a decision instead of giving me a hundred what ifs as if anyone would care.  Since you appear to care about a thousand permutations, I thought it best to try to limit you to one dimension so I can get a direct answer.

Who cares if they did it because they are a cold bloodied killer or that they were confused or that they mistook you for someone else.  Who cares if they could lose as much as you  or they are a nice guy or feed the hungry.  Who cares if they are a priest or a teacher or any other excuse you can dream up to not answer a direct question.  The basic question, if someone ask another person to kill your kids DO YOU believe they are just as guilty as the person committing the crime.

In another effort to remove all excuses so what would you believe absolves a person from asking another person to kill your kids.  lets try the reverse psychology route.  So what scenario would you believe a person is not just as guilty as the person who actually committed the crime.  You can limit it to just one answer.