IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Jereel Hunter said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Just remember that while the woman killed him to take revenge and to clear her mind, capturing her was his revenge for his miserable childhood (well, and to clear his mind).
Both of them did something wrong because of previous experiences. Her experience just happened to be more recent and more visible to the public.
|
Revenge is only revenge if it's taken on those who wronged you. She took revenge. He did not.
And she didn't do something wrong because of "previous experiences." The example given was killing him while escaping. She did something wrong in order to ensure her continued life/freedom. Even if the public was to hear his story, it doesn't justify his actions toward her.
|
She took revenge on the direct source, he did not. I may blow up Canada as revenge for their poor hockey efforts.
Killing is wrong as long as it is not necessary according to law. Self-defence murder can be justified, but that is not the case in the OP. Thus her action was wrong, but we can easily understand why she did it.
|
You're acting like this killing is black and white, but it's all sorts of colors, man. Especially when your point revolves around public outcry and opinion.
Direct vs Indirect Revenge is a huuuuuge difference in both intent and social human acceptance in our culture.
