NintendoPie said: IIIIITHE1IIIII said: And I clearly said that there is no reason for him to do so. Where's the confusion? It looked like you were defending D against hitting someone when he didn't. If he didn't hit anyone in this case wouldn't he be the "best"?

Whether he's best or not depends completely on the situation (which would need far more details). Let's make person B an old lady, while C is an average pedestrian willing to defend her. Wouldn't direct actions be better than calling the cops (since she would get more injured by waiting for the cops)? But then there is also the bravery factor. Is a brave person (who dare to confront person A) 'better' than someone who sees calling the cops as the only option? Side-note: As you may know, I don't believe in free will, so personally I wouldn't call anyone 'better'.

IIIIITHE1IIIII said: Well, in that case it seems like person B was harmed for no reason while person C wanted to defend him. Person C didn't harm A without reason, while person D's only reasoning should be to defend A's actions, unless D wasn't aware of C's motivation (defending). Assuming that B wasn't able to defend himself, C did the right thing while A and D had no reason to hit anyone.

Person B was harmed for no reason, but C harmed A in an isolated event where B didn't exist. That is either quite some time later, or in another location. The sole reason for C to harm A was that A harmed B.

NintendoPie said: mantlepiecek said: NintendoPie said: Person B would be the best in the situation. But, if Person A had a great reason to inflict harm (which I doubt) then I would choose him. You can't choose person B. It's between A, C, and D; and A had no reason to harm B. @ your edit. OT: Then I would choose D as he hasn't caused harm.

You have to assume that D has harmed C.

C and D are just trying to cause trouble by using the fact that A harmed B as an excuse to start beating people up. A is the best in this situation, although I disagree with violence generally.

There is no absolute answer to your question, as this is ultimately dependent of the magnitude of such case and its backstory.

Harm is harm.

If you were to put a names for example:
A = Serial Killer,
B = Victims,
C = Authorities, and
D = Civilian

If a serial killer kills, were convicted of Murder as a capital felony and sentenced to death, some random individual would have no right to seek revenge against the authorities.

xLeftyx said: There is no absolute answer to your question, as this is ultimately dependent of the magnitude of such case and its backstory. Harm is harm. If you were to put a names for example: A = Serial Killer, B = Victims, C = Authorities, and D = Civilian If a serial killer kills, were convicted of Murder as a capital felony and sentenced to death, some random individual would have no right to seek revenge against the authorities.

Nice answer lol.

Person A. At least he did not jump into other peoples fights. If everyone were like person A, there would be smaller isolated fights. I everyone were like persons C & D, there would be never-ending riots involving hundreds of people at once.

Jay520 said: Person A. At least he did not jump into other peoples fights. If everyone were like person A, there would be smaller isolated fights. I everyone were like persons C & D, there would be never-ending riots involving hundreds of people at once.

That's a very interesting thought, at first I laughed but after thinking it actually makes some sense.

mantlepiecek said: IIIIITHE1IIIII said: Well, in that case it seems like person B was harmed for no reason while person C wanted to defend him. Person C didn't harm A without reason, while person D's only reasoning should be to defend A's actions, unless D wasn't aware of C's motivation (defending). Assuming that B wasn't able to defend himself, C did the right thing while A and D had no reason to hit anyone. Person B was harmed for no reason, but C harmed A in an isolated event where B didn't exist. That is either quite some time later, or in another location. The sole reason for C to harm A was that A harmed B.

Well, revenge does not equal defence. In that case what person C did was wrong.

TCDR; Too complicated, didn't read