# Justice and Revenge



## Empty Hands (May 9, 2011)

In the now locked thread on bin Laden's death, a poster implied that he would murder the family of a man who murdered his child.  For questioning this, a private message implied that I needed to move on to the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground (partisan Democrat sites).  

I had thought this was a fairly non-controversial opinion on the nature of justice, that transcends political divides.  Perhaps I was wrong.

So is revenge against the family of someone who has wronged you justified?  Is it moral?  Should it be permitted by society, or are laws against vigilantism and vendetta wrong?  Is revenge itself, even directly against the person who has wronged you, moral?

Opinions welcome.  Also, since the thread is now locked, I would welcome that poster to clarify his views if I misunderstood them.


----------



## Darksoul (May 9, 2011)

-If someone wrong's me, then my beef is with him. If a group wrong's me, than my beef is with that group. I don't need to exact more than a pound of flesh when one will satisfy me. If my revenge/bloodlust extends beyond the guilty party, then it is me who should be hunted. We try to balance the scales, not just the ones before us, but also the one in our soul. Most religious speak out against seeking revenge.

-All I can think is, if there really is a higher being judging us from above, he or she or it is going to have a field day when some of us shed this mortal coil.

Sins of the father? Unless they are also your sins, you're free to go.


Andrew


----------



## granfire (May 9, 2011)

Seems perfectly understandable to punish _others_ for something they did not commit.

Has a long standing tradition in totalitarian regimes, right?! 
(of course, if it's your own turn to receive such just sentencing...)



and yes, that's sarcasm.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 9, 2011)

2 words.

Honor Killing.


----------



## granfire (May 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 2 words.
> 
> Honor Killing.



erm

not exactly?

I mean, the victim of those 'did' something.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 9, 2011)

Not always. 

But, what do you call someone who harms an innocent?

Anger, is a wonderful thing. Used carefully, it is a tool, used carelessly, it will consume you, and destroy you.

My enemy is my enemy. Unless his family were involved in the action, then it is not justice, it is murder. Under those terms "Kill them all" you better get them all. Because you have authorized and approved their vengence on you through the rest of your family.

They kill my kid.
I kill their kid.
They kill my wife.
I kill their mother.
They kill my cat.
I kill their puppy.
It ends when one of us runs out of family, friends, and pets, and are ourselves killed.

Not something I care to partake in.


----------



## granfire (May 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Not always.
> 
> But, what do you call someone who harms an innocent?
> 
> ...



well, when you put it this way...(I don't think for a girl showing her hair or putting on jeans it's a death worthy crime either, what we usually associate with honor killing...)


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> In the now locked thread on bin Laden's death, a poster implied that he would murder the family of a man who murdered his child.  For questioning this, a private message implied that I needed to move on to the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground (partisan Democrat sites).
> 
> I had thought this was a fairly non-controversial opinion on the nature of justice, that transcends political divides.  Perhaps I was wrong.
> 
> ...


One of the functions of civilization is to take the dealing out of justice out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the police. There is a good reason for this; although, when it is your child you feel differently. 
Sean


----------



## WC_lun (May 9, 2011)

You would think someone with the opinion that killing a family for the sins of the father would embrace right wing Islamist radicalism, since the thougt process, particularly when it comes to revenge are so similiar.  Justice should be something we all strive for.  However, revenge never leads to anything productive and lives in the realm of ignorance, hatred, and stupidity.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2011)

In the USA, we live in a society of laws, where criminal justice is administered by the state.  There is no such thing as private justice.  Most of us tend to agree and go along with this notion, until a wrong is done to us or our loved ones, and then some of us decide that private justice is well and good.  An 'eye for and eye' and all that.

I won't touch the moral aspect of revenge, retribution, or private justice.  I will simply say that a society that permits it to any large extent will cease to function.  Society requires that most citizens obey law, and that those who do not are dealt with by the state.  A nation that tolerates private justice quickly becomes unable to maintain order, since every citizen will set their own standard for what requires private justice to be administered.  Shall we shoot those who shoot our families?  Very well, then.  Shall we shoot those who insult our honor?  It may seem that these two things are worlds apart; but once the private revenge business is allowed to flourish, the boundaries quickly break down.

Government-run criminal justice is often not just, not fair, not satisfying, and not even uniform.  However, it is what keeps our society running and prevents a slide into chaos.  It is far from perfect; but there is nothing better currently available.

In 1984, a karate instructor named Jeffrey Doucet allegedly kidnapped a student he had been molesting, and absconded with the boy to California.  He was captured by police and returned to face trial.  However, as deputies escorted him through the airport, the boy's father, Gary Plauche, stepped out from a pay phone, drew a revolver from a paper bag, and shot Doucet through the head, killing him instantly.  This, by the way, happened live on television; I remember it well.

Plauche was arrested and charged with murder.  He was found guilty at trial and sentenced to probation.  Many felt that he should not have even been arrested; he was feted as a hero by many.

However, let us propose that Doucet had not been guilty.  As it turns out, the boy in question was in the news recently - he confirms now what was alleged then - but let us pretend for the sake of argument that the allegation was untrue.  Is Plauche's action still justifiable?  Is it still permissible?  Is it still heroic?

Let us propose that Plauche had hit an innocent bystander?  After all, he was in an airport, surrounded by passengers, police officers, and news reporters.  The shot was a .38 Special directly to the head of Doucet; it could easily have over-penetrated and injured or killed someone else.  He might as easily have missed, with similar results.  Is Plauche's action still justifiable?  Still permissible?  Still heroic?

And although we tend to put ourselves in Plauche's shoes and ask _"How would I feel if it happened to my child,"_ we do not tend to put ourselves in the shoes of Doucet's family - if he were innocent - or in the shoes of the loved ones of an innocent killed by mistake when Plauche sought revenge.

Suppose your father or brother or sister had been walking through the airport and been shot by an over-penetrating bullet fired by Plauche.  Would you still feel he was a hero who did what he had to do?  Would you be happy to hear he had been given probation instead of prison time after taking justice into his own hands?  Perhaps you would feel that you were then justified to seek private justice against Plauche?  I mean, why not?

I contend that private justice is degenerative and damaging to societies such as ours. Even though it may seem at times that justice is more completely done when administered by angry families of victims, the overall effect is destructive.

The funny part to me is that the desire to keep justice administered by the state is a conservative value; allowing private justice is essentially anarchic, the antithesis of order.  I certainly don't find it in conflict with my conservative viewpoint.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> One of the functions of civilization is to take the dealing out of justice out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the police. There is a good reason for this; although, when it is your child you feel differently.
> Sean



Agreed.  Although technically, the police are not part of the justice system; they are part of the executive system.  They enforce the laws; the courts exact the punishment on behalf of society.  But yes, a civilized society places the justice system in the hands of the government and this is one of the many reasons for it.

This, by the way, is the same reason that jurors are unidentified and hangmen are hooded.  The state exacts the punishment; not a person.  If I catch some guy rustling my cattle and hang him, his son comes after me, and my son comes after him, and so on.  If I catch some guy rustling my cattle and turn him over to the police, and the courts hang him, his son can rue and regret; but not come after me.  If his son goes after the government; well, he'll hang like his daddy, and the government won't seek revenge, so it ends there.


----------



## WC_lun (May 9, 2011)

Revenge doesn't end.  It keeps perpetuating itself.  In my neighborhood we know we are in for a rough patch when some gang banger is wounded or killed.  It never ends there, because his homeys want revenge.  You get revenge shooting after revenge shooting.  Honest people get caught in the crossfire, often children. Aside from the moral issues, there are too many unintended consequences.


----------



## MJS (May 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> In the now locked thread on bin Laden's death, a poster implied that he would murder the family of a man who murdered his child. For questioning this, a private message implied that I needed to move on to the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground (partisan Democrat sites).
> 
> I had thought this was a fairly non-controversial opinion on the nature of justice, that transcends political divides. Perhaps I was wrong.
> 
> ...


 
As someone else said, my beef is with the person, not the persons family.  If I was going to actually seek out revenge, I'd seek it against that person, nobody else.   If someone murdered my child, what use is it to me to kill his mother?  Sure, I suppose you could, after all, he took someone from you, you're taking someone from him.  But what if his mother had nothing to do with the death of my child?  But like WC_lun just said....its a never-ending cycle of nothing but trouble.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2011)

MJS said:


> As someone else said, my beef is with the person, not the persons family.  If I was going to actually seek out revenge, I'd seek it against that person, nobody else.   If someone murdered my child, what use is it to me to kill his mother?  Sure, I suppose you could, after all, he took someone from you, you're taking someone from him.  But what if his mother had nothing to do with the death of my child?  But like WC_lun just said....its a never-ending cycle of nothing but trouble.



And that person's son kills you.  And your son kills him.  Same never-ending cycle of violence.  And again - great if you kill the guy who kills someone in your family.  And if you turn out to be wrong and he's not the guy?  And if you accidentally kill someone else who just happened to be in the area?  But that could not happen - you'd be dead certain, and your aim is just so darned good, no way could that occur, right?

Revenge is private justice.  Private justice is forbidden.  For good reason.  Anyone who can't abide by the rules of society should not be living in that society.  A murderer is one such.  A person who seeks vengeance for murder is themselves a murderer - no better, no worse.  Both must be removed from society for the good of the rest of us.


----------



## Big Don (May 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> They kill my kid.
> I kill their kid.
> They kill my wife.
> I kill their mother.
> ...


They put one of our's in the hospital, we put one of their's in the morgue...


----------



## MJS (May 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And that person's son kills you. And your son kills him. Same never-ending cycle of violence. And again - great if you kill the guy who kills someone in your family. And if you turn out to be wrong and he's not the guy? And if you accidentally kill someone else who just happened to be in the area? But that could not happen - you'd be dead certain, and your aim is just so darned good, no way could that occur, right?
> 
> Revenge is private justice. Private justice is forbidden. For good reason. Anyone who can't abide by the rules of society should not be living in that society. A murderer is one such. A person who seeks vengeance for murder is themselves a murderer - no better, no worse. Both must be removed from society for the good of the rest of us.


 
I agree, and I hope my post didn't imply that I was all for revenge.  Apologies if it did.  Much like defending yourself, the threat is over, the guy is down, and we use his ribs for football practice.....no, as I've said before....as tempting as it may be, no need to do that.

So no, better to let the law deal with it.  Now...if someone were physically in the act of trying to kill my child, wife, mother, father....no, theres no question about it....I would, and I certainly hope everyone else would as well, immediately go to the defense of our loved one, and yes, if it meant taking the attackers life, then so be it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2011)

MJS said:


> I agree, and I hope my post didn't imply that I was all for revenge.  Apologies if it did.  Much like defending yourself, the threat is over, the guy is down, and we use his ribs for football practice.....no, as I've said before....as tempting as it may be, no need to do that.
> 
> So no, better to let the law deal with it.  Now...if someone were physically in the act of trying to kill my child, wife, mother, father....no, theres no question about it....I would, and I certainly hope everyone else would as well, immediately go to the defense of our loved one, and yes, if it meant taking the attackers life, then so be it.



My mistake.  Since I wasn't part of the original thread, I thought you were condoning going after someone who personally did your family an injury, but not going after their family.  Mea culpa.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 9, 2011)

there is a certain train of thought that says "make them regret angering you so greatly that they nor thier decendants will ever think of going after you"

i dont know if i agree with it, but it is an historically followed concept.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 9, 2011)

Vengeance is Mine, Sayeth the Lord.

Just saying.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> there is a certain train of thought that says "make them regret angering you so greatly that they nor thier decendants will ever think of going after you"
> 
> i dont know if i agree with it, but it is an historically followed concept.



Yes, but...

a) does it work?  From the example of the Hatfields and the McCoys - apocryphal, but you get the idea, one gets the notion that escalation never ends until one side is ultimately wiped out completely.

b) is that the kind of society we want to live in?  Here I can only say that many people seem to think they do.  I suspect they may wish this, but if one of their own were tracked down and killed in a revenge killing, they'd not think it was all that lovely.  Of course, one never thinks of one's own "Well, I guess he had it coming."  Ours are always the innocents.  The ones seeking the revenge are always the bad guys in those circumstances.


----------



## WC_lun (May 9, 2011)

The Manchus in China did something I assume most people here would find barbaric.  If the believed a person was a rebel against the government, they would execute that person and all of thier family out to seven generations.  Now it isn't revenge, but you can see how the thinking is a bit similiar.  Guess what happened to the Manchus?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> The Manchus in China did something I assume most people here would find barbaric.  If the believed a person was a rebel against the government, they would execute that person and all of thier family out to seven generations.  Now it isn't revenge, but you can see how the thinking is a bit similiar.  Guess what happened to the Manchus?



I once knew two sisters who could not stand each other.  They used to engage in fistfights with each other all the time.  Once, one of them shoved her sister's head through a plate-glass window over a fight at breakfast.  Nice.

I talked to each of them.  They both claimed they wanted the fighting to stop - if one would stop, so would the other.  But neither one would be the last to be hit.  If sister A gets hit, she hits sister B.  If B gets hit, she hits sister A.  Since neither one would accept  being the last to get hit, it just went on and on.  Both of them were proud that they _"didn't back down"_ from the other's taunts, threats, and violence.  Yep, they didn't back down.  Both of them insisted that they were _"teaching"_ the other _"a lesson she will never forget,"_ but neither one apparently ever learned the lesson the other was teaching.  Both claimed they wanted peace; neither one would be the first to stop fighting.  Each claimed the other was the aggressor.

You couldn't tell them anything; they were so supremely proud of their idiocy, they would never take a step back and think about what it actually takes to end the fighting.  All they knew was that they were _"not going to take any *****"_ from the other.  Yay, them.  They sure showed the rest of the world.

By the way, one of them is dead now.  No, they didn't kill each other; but one of them took her tough-chick ways to a bar and got shot directly in the forehead.

She sure showed them.  Proved something.  I guess.  I'd rather be alive, but hey, that's just me.  A big ol' wussy.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 9, 2011)

quite a bit of difference between not backing down and taking revenge on someone that wrong you.

look, we KNOW the court system is a joke. The scumbag that rapes your kid? prob wont even do time

it is understandable to want to get some payback

it is understandable to GET the payback

the only real question is, what would it take for YOU to do it


it may not be "right" but it IS the human condition


----------



## Empty Hands (May 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> it may not be "right" but it IS the human condition



So is kid raping.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> quite a bit of difference between not backing down and taking revenge on someone that wrong you.
> 
> look, we KNOW the court system is a joke. The scumbag that rapes your kid? prob wont even do time
> 
> ...


I doubt I could be that angry a person, that I would take it that far.  
Yeah, attack me I will defend. Attack my family I will defend.
I might ever seek revenge.

But there's a difference between you and I engaging and I take out your 25 yr old brother after he joins in, and me sneaking into your house at 3am and snapping the neck of your 4 month old son.

Now that's an example, so John, just in case...you have a 25 yr old brother or a 4 month old son, it's NOT aimed at you personally. As far as I know you have neither, but I accidentally hit 2 personal shots before by dumb fricken luck so ain't taking a chance this time.  Just so it's all clear.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 9, 2011)

EH, the fact that you find "kid raping" a normal part of the human condition is kinda scary

Bob,
I get what you are saying, no worries, but the thing is, i have atheory that says you never know what you will do till you have to, so while i get ya, would you say that you dont THINK you could do that?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I doubt I could be that angry a person, that I would take it that far.
> Yeah, attack me I will defend. Attack my family I will defend.
> I might ever seek revenge.
> 
> ...


 
I like how to suit the purpose of the argument, those against the idea of revenge like to toss in 4 month olds, and innocent children... concepts that most likely not going to be a part of the scenario in some of these worst case offenders.
All these serial rapists, kidnappers, and killers who have a full nuclear innocent family surrounding them.... ya. This is why I have avoided this topic. some of you would rather chose to toss in the most extreme unlikely scenarios..


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 9, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I like how to suit the purpose of the argument, those against the idea of revenge like to toss in 4 month olds, and innocent children... concepts that most likely not going to be a part of the scenario in some of these worst case offenders.
> All these serial rapists, kidnappers, and killers who have a full nuclear innocent family surrounding them.... ya. This is why I have avoided this topic. some of you would rather chose to toss in the most extreme unlikely scenarios..


If they have no families, then there is no opportunity to go beyond them.
If they do, it is possible that there will be children.

Is it more acceptable to kill an innocent 12 yr old, or 17 yr old than a 4 yr old or 4 month old?
My perception was that the discussion was about extending revenge past the immediate offender.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If they have no families, then there is no opportunity to go beyond them.
> If they do, it is possible that there will be children.
> 
> Is it more acceptable to kill an innocent 12 yr old, or 17 yr old than a 4 yr old or 4 month old?
> My perception was that the discussion was about extending revenge past the immediate offender.


 
so we are talking about a person who kidnaps, rapes, and kills other human beings and you think he is going to be surrounded by loving family, innocent children, and people who are good?
Interesting.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 9, 2011)

Should the SEAL team that put the bullet in Osama's head, also put one in his 12 year old daughters, as revenge for 9/11?
What if the shooter had lost his wife in the collapse?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> So is kid raping.


 
maybe in your family tree. 
Not in the vast majority of human beings it isnt though, and where it is I would say its an abomination, not a condition.


----------



## MJS (May 9, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I like how to suit the purpose of the argument, those against the idea of revenge like to toss in 4 month olds, and innocent children... concepts that most likely not going to be a part of the scenario in some of these worst case offenders.
> All these serial rapists, kidnappers, and killers who have a full nuclear innocent family surrounding them.... ya. This is why I have avoided this topic. some of you would rather chose to toss in the most extreme unlikely scenarios..


 
In my post, I simply said child or wife.  I mention no ages, but for the sake of discussion, we could insert anyone into the mix.....newborn all the way to 90yo mother.  But, as Bob said, we're talking about exacting revenge, not the ages of the people.  Out of curiosity, what is your take on the topic?  Were someone to take out one of your family members, what would you do?  And as unlikely as it seems, I wouldn't rule out violence happening.  Supposedly this wasn't supposed to go down the way it did, yet you had this sick **** sexually assault an 11yo. and burn the place down.

For what its worth, you'll note that in my posts I've made so far, I said that seeking revenge is more headache than its worth.  



LuckyKBoxer said:


> so we are talking about a person who kidnaps, rapes, and kills other human beings and you think he is going to be surrounded by loving family, innocent children, and people who are good?
> Interesting.


 
Surrounded by them...probably not, but thats not to say that he doesnt have a decent family who cares about him, but due to him being a ****ed up outcast, they've got nothing to do with him anymore.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> EH, the fact that you find "kid raping" a normal part of the human condition is kinda scary





LuckyKBoxer said:


> maybe in your family tree.
> Not in the vast majority of human beings it isnt though, and where it is I would say its an abomination, not a condition.



During 2007, according to collected crime stats, 794,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect.  In 2008 in the United States, 90,000 people reported being the victim of rape, and it is well understood that rape is highly underreported.  In the United States in 2009, 15,241 people were murdered, and 806,843 were the victims of aggravated assault.

Of course rape, murder and mayhem are part of the human condition.  As are a plethora of other unwholesome habits and tendencies, including the drive for revenge.  Thus, the "human condition" is an excuse for nothing.  We need to rise above the human condition, not sink down to it.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 9, 2011)

kid rape is not normal, no matter how common it is


----------



## Empty Hands (May 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> kid rape is not normal, no matter how common it is



Who said anything about normal?  Certainly not me.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 9, 2011)

yeah, you did.

I said: normal human condition

you: so is kid rape

so, you pretty much did


----------



## MA-Caver (May 9, 2011)

Justice is always better than revenge by any means.   It's very very easy to say I would do this if they do that to me or my family. But when it comes right down to it... could we? WOULD we? ... It's very easy to say &quot;I will kill you&quot; but a far different thing to actually carry it out. How many of us have actually killed (OUTSIDE of Military/LEO) someone? I'd dare say not a lot. For if we did we would've had justice met upon us and be reading/typing replies to MT while in jail... if we're lucky.   I've never killed anyone ... yes many times I've wanted to and several times have gotten into such a rage that I was more-n-likely capable. What about afterwards? How am I going to feel? How are YOU going to feel after you kill someone? Are you sure? 100% sure that you'll be able to put your head on your pillow at night peacefully, calmly, serenely?  This is the real curse that revenge killing brings. Not eye for an eye and so on... but how we as human beings, with values towards life and preserving it.  Sure we'd want a murderer, child molester, terrorist to have justice met upon them and if it means the death penalty so be it. We have people who have been trained/experienced in dealing death for those circumstances because our (present) laws calls for it. So their death doesn't bother us much... probably because we view it as justice. Fair trial and all that. We call the death of Osama BL justice... someone else can call it revenge. The soldiers were under orders to try and capture the man alive but kill him to prevent escape.  Is it still justice? He was unarmed and could've been subdued... even with a well placed round in center mass which could be operated on and thus keeping him alive long enough to go to trial. But the soldier chose to go for the head shot and thus put an end to the man.   If I'm not mistaken the law (here) says that if I see someone kill my father and I in turn kill him then I'm cited for murder of the first degree. If in the act of protecting my father from being killed I end up killing someone then it's rated as second degree... depending upon circumstances. Before the actual act I have to be damned careful about what I say to the potential killer. &quot;You touch him and I'll kill you!&quot;... can get me a first degree rap if I'm not mistaken. Is it revenge? No because it hasn't happened yet, what about after... I walk into the room find my father dead on the floor and a guy standing over his body with a bloody knife or smoking gun and I hear him say...&quot;I got you sucker!&quot; and I go over and kill him (somehow). That could be construed as revenge killing... even defensive killing if I testify in court that he came after me next. Either way I still go to jail and I have a man's death on my hands/head.  So, how am I going to feel about that? Knowing that answer helps in knowing if killing is something I'm truly capable of.   (edit)  Honest to god there were spaces and paragraphs when I typed this all out.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> yeah, you did.
> 
> I said: normal human condition
> 
> ...



No, I said kid rape is part of the human condition.  As is the desire for revenge, and the word "normal" did not appear in your post.  You said the desire was "understandable", but in any case, I made no claims to normalcy or how widespread child rape was, simply that it was also part of the human condition.

The point, which you are busily ignoring, is that the "human condition" is no justification for anything since it includes everything from the horrifying and evil to compassionate and good.  It would be nice if we could actually address that point instead of deliberately ignoring it in favor of making insinuations about my family.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 9, 2011)

"ignoring it in favor of making insinuations about my family. 	"

first of all, i wasnt, (that was someone else)but even if i was, you do it everyday to anyone that disagrees with you, so.....i dont care.

that being said: it is perfectly normal to want revenge, and to seek it out, unlike kid rape, which is never normal


----------



## WC_lun (May 9, 2011)

Where does revenge end?  The death of the person who wronged you? His family?  His friends?  The death of your family and friends?  If you take another person's life for revenge, you are a murderer.  Can you, your family, and friends live with that?  Do you even truly know what that means? Have you ever been forced to commit violence on another human being?  Unless you are an extremely disturbed individual there is no good feelings associated with it and quite a few pitfalls.

Most guys that talk so loudly about getting revenge if someone wronged them are either pounding htier chest like an ape or so ignorant that the concept of taking another person's life is not even real to them.  It contimues to shock me at how callously some people talk about taking life.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 9, 2011)

why would it? human beings are savage, beastial creatures at BEST


----------



## JohnEdward (May 10, 2011)

I don't see how killing can be the best revenge. Killing is final, you have one opportunity and it is done quickly. Wouldn't it be better to seek revenge in other ways besides mass murder, thus knowing that person is going to miserable for sometime and you're the cause of it. I guess that is the difference between those who really understand revenge and those who don't.


----------



## WC_lun (May 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> why would it? human beings are savage, beastial creatures at BEST


 
Wrong.  Human beings are savage, beastial, creatures at worst.  So we have a choice to aspire to be something greater than this or remain in the muck with the lowest comon denominator.  What contimues to shock me is the sheer amount of people who actively chose to remain the lowest common denominator.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 10, 2011)

stick to what works...lol


----------

