Awesome!
... Deaths are feel good stories now?
When it's one soldier with a khukuri fighting against 40 armed bandits in the middle of a jungle to save a girl from being raped, they are.
... Deaths are feel good stories now?
When it's one soldier with a khukuri fighting against 40 armed bandits in the middle of a jungle to save a girl from being raped, they are.
Sounds like a plot for an action movie...
When it's one soldier with a khukuri fighting against 40 armed bandits in the middle of a jungle to save a girl from being raped, they are.
Sounds like a plot for an action movie...
They'd probably move the train to Siberia and have the soldier American rather than Ghurka. Maybe they'd give him a backstory of traing with Ghurksas, if they felt generous (although that would be still a little silly). If not, he'd probably get a bowie knife or a machete, because they're more recognizable.
EDIT. and the train would carry nuclear weaponry.
That's what happens when you bring a kukuri to a gun fight...
...wait a second...
... Deaths are feel good stories now?
Let me guess, it was wrong for someone to be carrying a deadly weapon in public, right? And as such he should have just sat there and done nothing while the bandits raped this young woman?
Goldo, you may think that society is to blame for that. You may even be right. But it's not right to downplay a man's heroism and selfless actions because of something (society, economy, etc) that he has no control over. He did the right thing and deserves to be recognized for it.
No. I believe that this attitude lul people to sleep and make them forget what they really should demande from the government. This is anecdotale, a human interest story, it is a distraction from the big picture. It make people believe that the system works instead of making them realize that it is a manifestation of the system failing.
Wake up mass! /slap
The story has nothing to do with the "system" at all. And believe it or not, there are wealthy people who are bad and are criminals too. Demanding money from the government won't magically make these problems go away.
Sounds to my like you approve of ****, as well as robbery. After all, you label yourself as the "Resident Pervert." Is that how perverted you are?
Povrety is the real problem here. Instead of applauding the use of weapons because they appeare as a panacea, we should critic a corrupt government who doesn't make sure that wealth is distributed in a fair way and force people to petty crimes.
When was the last time 40 people try to rob a train in Canada? It is not because of concealed weapons (illegal), but because of better wealth distribution.
In other words, people applaude that a doctor managed to save a man's life by cutting his leg off, but maybe if that man had access to medecine the amputaion wouldn't have been necessary.
But such thoughts are way to complexe for this crowd. So let's applaude guns! Yeah! Panacea! Yeah! Super Bowl! Yeah! We are sheep! Yeah!
O.k. Goldo, you have convinced me. I am learning French and moving to Canada. Dude... they are distributing vaginas!!! How awesome is that!?!?!?
No Iqwinn, I read the story. You just limite yourself to being happy that a man used weapons. I just try to see why he used it and if it could have been prevented.
But hey, you do come to the wrong conclusion regularly.
I'm being happy about the guy not using a weapon, but fighting against very bad odds against apparently better armed opponent in order to save a girl from being raped. You know, he had a large knife while 40 guys were waving what looked like guns. That's a balls of steel situation here.
The guy very likely knows how difficult it is to live there, that's probably why he was okay with giving up his money (similar things happen in South America); but **** is inexcusable and it's awesome to hear a story of preventing it.
;)
Please keep your posts respectful of other members, even if they disagree with you.
We make you watch Cirque du Soleil while listenning to Céline Dion!
You sick on of a
. There is a special place in Hell for people like you.
Yup, it's right next to Satan. Pretty confy and warm. And Satan speaks French by the way.
It being Hell, I would expect nothing else.
Okay, this guy is awesome. Not only is he a ****ing Ghurkha, which already automatically elevated him to BAMF status, he single-handedly scared off 40 armed bandits. With a mother-****ing kukuri, the single coolest type of knife on the planet. This puts this man into that category of illustrious humans that recieve my hero-worship (a group also containing Theodore Roosevelt, Freddie Murcury, and Miyamoto Musashi).
I prefer a butterfly knife 'cause of the kool trix.
Why are you upset, goldy, that the girl was rescued from being raped and possibly killed?
No, they are upset because the entire situation could have been prevented if there was a better society and economy in place...
But it's not right to downplay a man's heroism
Ok, but heroism is not the same as a feel good story ... taking out 40 men is a Seven Segal story
aweome? yes. fell good? no
Sounds to my like you approve of ****
...what...the...
dude, there is something horrible wrong with your ears. I would o see a doctor. ASAP
Why are you upset, goldy, that the girl was rescued from being raped and possibly killed?
probbably because the situation happened in the first place
Povrety is the real problem here. Instead of applauding the use of weapons because they appeare as a panacea, we should critic a corrupt government who doesn't make sure that wealth is distributed in a fair way and force people to petty crimes.
When was the last time 40 people try to rob a train in Canada? It is not because of concealed weapons (illegal), but because of better wealth distribution.
In other words, people applaude that a doctor managed to save a man's life by cutting his leg off, but maybe if that man had access to medecine the amputaion wouldn't have been necessary.
But such thoughts are way to complexe for this crowd. So let's applaude guns! Yeah! Panacea! Yeah! Super Bowl! Yeah! We are sheep! Yeah!
Good job on avoiding the questions, goldy.
Once more, "Let me guess, it was wrong for someone to be carrying a deadly weapon in public, right? And as such he should have just sat there and done nothing while the bandits raped this young woman?"
Why are you upset, goldy, that the girl was rescued from being raped and possibly killed?
No, they are upset because the entire situation could have been prevented if there was a better society and economy in place...
Some people in the world seem to think that if we all hold hands, sing kumbaya, and wish really, really, really hard that the world will suddenly be a perfect place.
Good job on avoiding the questions, goldy.
Once more, "Let me guess, it was wrong for someone to be carrying a deadly weapon in public, right? And as such he should have just sat there and done nothing while the bandits raped this young woman?"
IMO, its wrong that people should feel the need to carry deadly weapons. ands its wrong that people should resort to banditry. Woudnt you agree?
Some people in the world seem to think that if we all hold hands, sing kumbaya, and wish really, really, really hard that the world will suddenly be a perfect place.
Yes it will be. Why don't you think so? Because note your own premise, "if we all" - its an utopic dream, yes, but thats the nature of the word IF.
Its not because something cant be attained that one should not work toward it
Good job on avoiding the questions, goldy.
Once more, "Let me guess, it was wrong for someone to be carrying a deadly weapon in public, right? And as such he should have just sat there and done nothing while the bandits raped this young woman?"
IMO, its wrong that people should feel the need to carry deadly weapons. ands its wrong that people should resort to banditry. Woudnt you agree?Some people in the world seem to think that if we all hold hands, sing kumbaya, and wish really, really, really hard that the world will suddenly be a perfect place.
Yes it will be. Why don't you think so? Because note your own premise, "if we all" - its an utopic dream, yes, but thats the nature of the word IF.
Its not because something cant be attained that one should not work toward it
It might be "wrong" that people should feel the need to carry deadly weapons, but the fact that some do feel the need and do choose to carry those weapons does not make those people wrong or evil or stupid or compensating for something or living in fear, all of which goldy has said repeatedly on these forums.
I did not say that it is wrong to strive for a perfect world, but goldy is living in a fantasy world where he denies the reality of the world as it is today.
Good job on avoiding the questions, goldy.
Once more, "Let me guess, it was wrong for someone to be carrying a deadly weapon in public, right? And as such he should have just sat there and done nothing while the bandits raped this young woman?"
IMO, its wrong that people should feel the need to carry deadly weapons. ands its wrong that people should resort to banditry. Woudnt you agree?
I wouldn't agree with the first part.
Some people in the world seem to think that if we all hold hands, sing kumbaya, and wish really, really, really hard that the world will suddenly be a perfect place.
Yes it will be. Why don't you think so? Because note your own premise, "if we all" - its an utopic dream, yes, but thats the nature of the word IF.
No it wouldn't be. Psychotic disorders, disease, and famine wouldn't neccasarily dissappear if people no longer beared ill will towards one another.
Its not because something cant be attained that one should not work toward it.
Yes, it is.
its wrong that people should feel the need to carry deadly weapons. Woudnt you agree?
No.
but goldy is living in a fantasy world where he denies the reality of the world as it is today.
Disgusting, isn't it?
Please, PLEASE do not feed the troll.
Why are you upset, goldy, that the girl was rescued from being raped and possibly killed?
Oh, no, no one would be upset at that.
And I don't think it's the idea suggested by another poster, that if they only had a better society and economy, no one would try to commit a violent robbery or a sexual assault. After all, while it's true that Nepal is a very poor country, there is street crime even in the developed world.
No, no. I think it's something more like this...
While it's true that in this particular case, the use of force by someone who wasn't a police officer averted a tragic situation, in general it's unwise for private citizens to do anything but call the police. And, furthermore, people are too ready to get into fights when they get angry. In this particular case, of course, right and wrong were clear-cut. But if we publicize an incident like this, and praise its hero, that tends to reinforce the whole mind-set of using physical force to resolve problems.
While we admit that soldiers and policemen serve an essential function, basically it's something that shouldn't be discussed in public in front of children. And, especially, there shouldn't be any shows about policemen or war or any Westerns on television. Our instincts tend to make us think of successful fighters as heroes. These instincts are primitive things which, while applicable to some extremely rare situations, generally cause more trouble than they prevent - so they should be discouraged and suppressed as far as possible, and nothing should be done to instead promote and encourage them.
Now, I don't really agree with this way of thinking. We should be concerned about teaching our children right from wrong, so that they will only use force, if necessary, in a just manner and not an unjust one.
Trying to do away with crime by changing people's basic personalities instead is more likely to have little, if any, effect on future criminals, and just make it harder to recruit honest people to become policemen - and make law-abiding citizens more helpless prey for criminals when no policeman is near.
But this is still a form of thinking that comes naturally to people who, regardless of the justice of the situation, simply regard the use of force as something that is inherently disgusting.
So is this the point where Goldo steps in and tells us that it's the US's fault?
Only if he can do so in a trolling, baiting, flaming manner and not get moderated for it.
While it sucks to have to live in a place where people rob trains to survive and you feel threatened enough to feel the need to carry a weapon (lot of places like this in the world, like the US) at least he decided to put it to use for the right reasons.
Certain, specific posters (who will not be named due to their habit of reporting people) are nothing more than immature trolls with behavioral problems.
Please, PLEASE do not feed the troll.
Having different opinions than =/= trolling. Learn the difference already!
I too, think that this would be a better world if weaponry aimed at fellow men was obsolete, but I know it's what we call a "severed head's dream".
True, it would be awesome if people didn't need to resort to banditry. But when they do, it's equally awesome to hear about someone fending the bandits off.
Having different opinions than =/= trolling. Learn the difference already!
It's not that he has different opinions (no law against being wrong), it's mainly in the presentation of his outlandish and demonstrably false conclusions and ideas.
And you know as well as I do (hell, he has even admitted it) that he likes to push peoples buttons. And there is no way a person with even limited intelligence would believe half of what he says.
*shrug*
I call 'em like I see 'em... and I am a very good judge of character... because I hold it in such high regard.
It might be "wrong" that people should feel the need to carry deadly weapons, but the fact that some do feel the need and do choose to carry those weapons does not make those people wrong or evil or stupid or compensating for something or living in fear, all of which goldy has said repeatedly on these forums.
euh ... why else would someone feel the need to carry weapons? (I see you included living in fear. that would be my first guess why someone would).
I did not say that it is wrong to strive for a perfect world, but goldy is living in a fantasy world where he denies the reality of the world as it is today.
strange that I did not come to that same conclusion ...
Heck, he sees problems with the situation of some guy fighting of 40 bandits ... IMO people that dont see the problem are the ones living in a fantasy world. As I said (though in different context), fighting 40 men is a Steven Segal stroy.
its wrong that people should feel the need to carry deadly weapons. Woudnt you agree?
No.
Oh? Im intrigued. Why not?
note Im not against carrying weapons - in fact, for arguments sake, I dont care what people carry, as long as it does not affect me*. But against the feeling that they should
*. for example Im still against people carrying a huge box of rotten eggs on a packed train
Certain, specific posters (who will not be named due to their habit of reporting people) are nothing more than immature trolls with behavioral problems.
Please, PLEASE do not feed the troll.
intersting. Two points
- Please do realise that your post with a simple no (not 5 minutes before this post) also isn't a modelpost. If you directly contradict someone, its good form to at least explain WHY you think the other person is wrong.
- Did you know that making a thread with a desceptive title, is also a form of trolling? (nak-si, in Korean)
So ... Cast the first stone and all that ...
- Did you know that making a thread with a desceptive title, is also a form of trolling?
What thread would that be?
Certainly not this thread, because the OP is, indeed, a feel good story.
What thread would that be?
Certainly not this thread, because the OP is, indeed, a feel good story.
Yes, this thread. Seriously, do you not realise that many people dont think of it as a feel good story?
I said it before (though with a typo)
Awesome? Yes. Feel good? No.
Why do you feel that the story is a feel good story? (perhaps there is a form of misscommunication - me being a non-native english speaker and all)
No. I believe that this attitude lul people to sleep and make them forget what they really should demande from the government. This is anecdotale, a human interest story, it is a distraction from the big picture. It make people believe that the system works instead of making them realize that it is a manifestation of the system failing.
Well, I am not in favor of people being lulled to sleep.
But what should people demand from their government?
If they're going to demand an adequate living standard from the government, they're likely to be disappointed. Material standards of living come from productivity. Productivity comes from labor applied to resources under a given level of technology.
If the problem is - as it has been in most of the world in most of human history (and I do mean history; during prehistory, things weren't like that yet) - that with the given level of technology, the community in question has only enough land under its control so that intensive farming - sixteen hours a day of back-breaking work - will provide people with enough to eat, what can government do?
The government can take a tiny bit of food from each of these laboring peasants to support a small group of people who would work on improved farming implements.
More likely, it will be doing things like this:
Organizing the younger sons of these farmers, who would otherwise have to inherit patches of land too small to survive on, into armies to steal land from the next community over. (Hey, better this than that they become criminals, and weaken the community instead of strengthening it!)
Establishing nunneries, so some of the peasants won't be making babies.
Organizing priests, so that the peasants might entertain hopes for the afterlife if they work sixteen hours a day only for their survival with nothing to show for it on Earth.
In such an environment, stories of heroes - or, for that matter, romanticized bandits, from Robin Hood to Dick Turpin or Bonnie and Clyde - aren't necessarily going to have the effect of lulling people to sleep. Rather, such stories might well suggest to people that they could better their miserable lot through armed rebellion.
The thing is though, that the condition of working sixteen hours a day to eat is primarily the result of the paucity of the technology, and the amount of land controlled by neighboring tribes. Not the amount of grain Pharaoh takes for his taxes. Even if it's a significant fraction of GNP, one generation's natural population increase would eat up just as much.
So, historically, the real problem was technology, not politics. Today, one possible solution is within our power. We could voluntarily hold down our population level at a point where there was enough land for everyone to live at a comfortable standard of living.
That, though, is a solution that in some parts of the world could only provide the benefit of prosperity to a future generation. In other parts of the world, it's happening - too quickly, and thus immigration rules had to be liberalized to avoid an excessively aging population.
Nearly everyone wants to include kids of his own in the next generation of humanity. Maybe if the next generation all had hyphenated names, we could cut the world's population in half (because a daughter would be as good as a son)?
Governments can do a lot to create unnecessary human misery, but I think the basic problem remains after you fix the politics. Improvements in technology, things like finding a substitute for meat, can buy us time - but an increase in world production big enough to allow the "demographic transition" to take place worldwide would demand really big increases in production.
And people freak out at the idea of building new nuclear power plants. Getting by on windmills and solar power means a big cut in production.
RH likes violence and violence commited by soldiers or ex-soldiers. This made him feel good. Sad, really.
psst. not helping.
RH you were saying?
A proper title might fo been Tragic Incident Avoided in Indian Train, Could this had been Prevented?
or Steven Segal IRL
RH likes violence and violence commited by soldiers or ex-soldiers. This made him feel good. Sad, really.
A proper title might fo been Tragic Incident Avoided in Indian Train, Could this had been Prevented?
I would have preferred it had been titled "Awesome skillZZZ!!!"
Could this specific situation have been avoided? Maybe. There are plenty of rich countries where people get killed, robbed, and raped (not neccessarily in that order, though sometimes...).
I wouldn't have made a smart ass comment if I'd actually have thought that a sensible conversation was possible. And I actually believe what I said there.
So you made a preemptive strike to start an argument just to get ahead of the argument??? Goldo... bad form buddy... bad form.
It might be "wrong" that people should feel the need to carry deadly weapons, but the fact that some do feel the need and do choose to carry those weapons does not make those people wrong or evil or stupid or compensating for something or living in fear, all of which goldy has said repeatedly on these forums.
euh ... why else would someone feel the need to carry weapons? (I see you included living in fear. that would be my first guess why someone would).
How many people do you know who actually carry a firearm for personal defense? I am guessing that the number is probably zero. Sure, some people who carry might live in fear, but for most people who do it is nothing more than taking precautions to ensure that something does happen one will have the means to protect themselves. Saying that someone who carries a firearm for self defense is living in fear is exactly the same as saying that someone who locks their doors at night is living in fear.
It might be "wrong" that people should feel the need to carry deadly weapons, but the fact that some do feel the need and do choose to carry those weapons does not make those people wrong or evil or stupid or compensating for something or living in fear, all of which goldy has said repeatedly on these forums.
euh ... why else would someone feel the need to carry weapons? (I see you included living in fear. that would be my first guess why someone would).
How many people do you know who actually carry a firearm for personal defense? I am guessing that the number is probably zero. Sure, some people who carry might live in fear, but for most people who do it is nothing more than taking precautions to ensure that something does happen one will have the means to protect themselves. Saying that someone who carries a firearm for self defense is living in fear is exactly the same as saying that someone who locks their doors at night is living in fear.
To be fair, it is right to an extent. You could call it fear. You could say that you are afraid that when something does happen, you won't have a method to defend yourself.
I wouldn't say all, but yeah Canadians are a bunch of rubs. I am just glad I am a Québecois.
Wow. Talk about living in a fantasy world and needing a reality check! (As well as a Geography check!). Deny it all you want, goldy, but you ARE Canadian.
To be fair, it is right to an extent. You could call it fear. You could say that you are afraid that when something does happen, you won't have a method to defend yourself.
Or even easier, fear that a situation might pop up that can be only be defended with a firearm. There have been places and times where people felt no need at all to lock their doors, you know. That you cannot these days could be called realism, but it could also be called "fear of thieves", not all stupid to be, but still a fear.
How many people do you know who actually carry a firearm for personal defense?
I dont know anyone who carries a weapon. (exl. people who carry a swiss pocket knife (but not for weapon - those things are quite handy...) ).
but for most people who do it is nothing more than taking precautions to ensure that something does happen one will have the means to protect themselves
oh then its misscommunication. In my book that still falls under fear.
Its a logical response to the fear of violance (which is quite common).
Povrety is the real problem here. Instead of applauding the use of weapons because they appeare as a panacea, we should critic a corrupt government who doesn't make sure that wealth is distributed in a fair way and force people to petty crimes.
... any reason we can't both recognize heroic action and criticize the society and culture that made it necessary?
Alternate response: While the best solution may, indeed, be to have engineered the situation such that it never happened in the first place, that's no reason to consider a good (maybe not best) action to be unworthy of praise. The good shouldn't be the enemy of the best.
... any reason we can't both recognize heroic action and criticize the society and culture that made it necessary?
agreed
IMO, its wrong that people should feel the need to carry deadly weapons. ands its wrong that people should resort to banditry. Woudnt you agree?
I do. However, this is one of the cases where what should be is very different then what is. So while people shouldn't feel the need to carry deadly weaponry, it is very reasonable that many do feel the need, and cases like this illustrate that that while you might resent the need, it can be a very real need.
IMO, its wrong that people should feel the need to carry deadly weapons. ands its wrong that people should resort to banditry. Woudnt you agree?
I do. However, this is one of the cases where what should be is very different then what is. So while people shouldn't feel the need to carry deadly weaponry, it is very reasonable that many do feel the need, and cases like this illustrate that that while you might resent the need, it can be a very real need.
while agree in theory, this case (which is only 4 sentences of senario*) does not illustrate that there is a rael need to carry wepons.
It only illustrates that's a good** outcome is possible from carrying a weapon.
I mean, perhaps he could have used diplomacy. Again, it doesn't illustrate the need for diplomacy, but that it can be usefull.
*: "All this occurred because Bishnu Shrestha was on a train where about forty bandits, pretending to be passengers, suddenly revealed themselves, and, armed with knives, swords and pistols, stopped the train in the jungle, and proceeded to rob the hundreds of passengers. When the bandits reached Shrestha, he was ready to give up his valuables, but then the 18 year old girl sitting next to him was grabbed by the robbers, who wanted to **** her. The girl, who knew Shrestha was a retired soldier, appealed to him for help. So he pulled out the large, curved khukuri knife that all Gurkha soldiers (and many Gurkha civilians) carry, and went after the bandits. "
**relative off course
How many people do you know who actually carry a firearm for personal defense?
I dont know anyone who carries a weapon. (exl. people who carry a swiss pocket knife (but not for weapon - those things are quite handy...) ).but for most people who do it is nothing more than taking precautions to ensure that something does happen one will have the means to protect themselves
oh then its misscommunication. In my book that still falls under fear.
Its a logical response to the fear of violance (which is quite common).
I am assuming that when you go to bed at night you lock the door(s) to your home, right? That means that you go to bed afraid every nigh, right?
Not interested in pedantry. Quibble over word choice with someone else.
You mean tonight, right?
Well, yeah. Just not in the mood. And not with Qube. It isn't fun with 'em.
People here just think a gun mean=protection, as opposed to real social programs who actually divert people from turning to crime.
The problem is scope, agency, and reactive/proactive.
Being capable of defending oneself (possessing a gun along with the needed knowledge of usage and maintenance) is a matter of personal scope, it's something that you can do, and it's something that allows you to react to threats as they manifest.
A social program that prevents people from turning to crime in the first place (say, by making it such that they don't feel it's needed or acceptable) is a matter of societal scope, it's something that the community has to do, and it can only be proactive, so you don't see any effects for quite a while in most cases.
Not to mention that, again, you are creating a false dichotomy. There is nothing inherent to gun ownership or social programs that make them incompatible. It is, in fact, quite easy to hold both the notion that it is wise to take personal and private action to defend oneself as well as push for social programs that seek to remedy inequities in opportunity that lead to criminals. They aren't opposed.
Why are you upset, goldy, that the girl was rescued from being raped and possibly killed?
You are missing the point... as usual. Keep praying you might be enlighten at some point.
No, I'm not. The man risked his life, NOT to keep his stuff, NOT to get his stuff back, but to rescue a girl who was, but the bandits' own admission, going to be raped. He risked his life to save that girl, and you lable him a villian.
You seem to believe that if everyone had the same amount of money and resources, there would be no criminals, and that is just not so. Evil exists in the hearts of all men, and nothing external can change that. It is only by inculcating a sense of morality into people that you can have any kind of society.
There are always going to be people around who will not care about how other people feel, people for whom Do unto others as you would have them do unto you has been truncated to Do unto others, and they will do what they will to others until they are stopped, whether driven off or killed.
It really is sad that there are such people in the world, but such people necessitate the wise carrying of weaponry, as well as the knowledge and willingness to use them should the need arise.
I do not believe in evil or good.
And therein lies your problem, goldy.
As for you believing that the soldier was a villian, your reaction to his actions is all I needed to read. You seem to think that the girl should have been raped and/or killed by the bandits. Am I wrong in that assumption?
Why is it not fun with him?
Hell if I know. Sometimes it's fun with some people, sometimes it's just a drag. /shrug
It wasn't ment as a dichotomy but has a more realistic way to get protection.
... but, for the individual, it's not. For less then a $500 I can get a small pistol, a concealed carry permit, and quite a bit of time down at the shooting range getting accurate with it. And then, if at some point it becomes appropriate to do so, I can use it to defend myself without even pulling the trigger as just having it will, in many cases, be enough.
For the same amount of money I can't do much for a social program. Sure, it'll help them, but the effect of just $500 won't be much. There's a reason they're done by societies and not individuals, ya know. You needs lots of little donations to make it happen. $500? Just a drop in the bucket, won't have any appreciable effect on it's own.
So yeah. If you're looking at the personal scale, then yeah, I'd argue that a gun does more for personal safety then a charity does. Not to mention there's the whole reactive/proactive side of things. You will probably never hear of a mugger being deterred by someone saying they donate to Red Cross. A mugger deterred by a brandished hand gun? That one does happen.
Throw in that various personal traits can increase/decrease the liklihood of oneself being subjected to a situation in which violence probably is the answer? Yeah. It's very easy for an individual's personal calculus to come out in favor of the concealed carry.
Especially when you consider all the draw backs and costs (murders, accidents, injuries, suicide, crimes) that private gun ownership bring.
... yeah... those drawbacks you've yet to actually establish beyond mere correlation, and which correlation doesn't actually support when you look beyond the USA, Canada and Yemen? You never did respond to my chart [link] which, admittedly, is just more correlation, but it shows that the correlation isn't really in your favor.
If it were, shouldn't you have less crime then us? We at least know it is not remotely a deterrent. Keep praying. You'll get there.
... you do realize that in guns per capita Canada is only ranked 13th of 178 or so, right? You're not exactly on the low end of things.
I think the conditions that led to the potential **** of this girl could have been avoided, since we do not have train robberies conducted by 40 men here, where wealth is better distributed.
Granted. But given that it did happen, why should the stopping of it not be celebrated?
For less then a $500 I can get a small pistol, a concealed carry permit, and quite a bit of time down at the shooting range getting accurate with it. And then, if at some point it becomes appropriate to do so, I can use it to defend myself without even pulling the trigger as just having it will, in many cases, be enough.
[snip]
It's very easy for an individual's personal calculus to come out in favor of the concealed carry.
If you're in one of the states that allows open carry, and you are doing so, the odds of ever encountering the person who's looking for a target would almost certainly go down by a large margin. I would have to say that, if you never want to use your weapon, open carry is superior to concealed carry.
I was critical of the medias and the people who take this sort of anecdotale event to validate a fallacious way of seeing life.
What is so fallacious? The Gurkha had a weapon he had been trained to use. He used his weapon to save the girl. Seems pretty clear that if you have a weapon and are trained to use said weapon, you to could help save the life of another or even your own.
Is it the only option? No, of course not. Is it wrong to use force to protect yourself or someone else? No, it isn't.
I do not believe in evil or good.
That being said, crimes still exist here in Québec, where a better redistribution of wealth exist then in India. but we do not have 40 people robbing a train.
This is true. you don't have 40 people trying to rob a train, but the people in Canada that do commit crimes with weapons, generally have better weapons than the 40 guys had in this story. Don't forget, the article mentions that several of the assailants had guns. The article mentions that the guns were probably toys or did not work. How many times have you heard stories of people in Canada running away because the gun they were using to commit a crime did not work?
This is what I am trying to say, and I hope, but do not believe, you will understand, is that the type of crimes commited change when wealth is better distributed. The violence of these crimes also change.
And, as a side note, I do not believe that making sure everyone has the same amount of money is realitic and no serious socialist wish to persue. I am arealist. I do not believe in magical superior beings and other planes of existence.
The types of crimes don't change when wealth is better distributed. Crimes are crimes. There are robberies in India, Canada, Germany, the U.S. and France. The topography of the crime may change, but the crime occurs. in Quebec you may only be robbed by one guy with a gun. In India it takes a few more people. The end result is getting robbed.
Nah, there is very little way to protect one self from such people. I find it sad that people believe that carrying guns are the solutions. It is a short sighted view. Immidiate. Childish. Dumb. American.
I'm not sure why you bring up guns. The Gurkha in the story was carrying a Kukri which he used with expert efficiency to defend the girl.
Funny thing is that when you say "Nah, there is very little way to protect one self from such people," I hear your "daddy issues" boiling up. My guess, your dad was/is a very authoritarian person who you find to be very imposing and are unable to defend yourself from him. Your inability to stand up to your father shows through when you make comments about not being able to defend yourself from "such people."
If it were, shouldn't you have less crime then us? We at least know it is not remotely a deterrent. Keep praying. You'll get there.
There has been plenty of discussions bout this. Proportionately, the crime rates are about the same in Canada and the U.S. Do you really want me to look up the study again?Last time you weak response was something to the effect of "it's an old study... blah blah blah."
I think the conditions that led to the potential **** of this girl could have been avoided, since we do not have train robberies conducted by 40 men here, where wealth is better distributed.
**** is not a crime caused by economics. **** is a crime perpetrated by the rich and the poor alike.
I think the conditions that led to the potential **** of this girl could have been avoided, since we do not have train robberies conducted by 40 men here, where wealth is better distributed.
**** is not a crime caused by economics. **** is a crime perpetrated by the rich and the poor alike.
But the potential rapist was a thief first an opportunist second.
Doesn't matter. The same guy who grabbed her could have been her boss, teacher or family friend. That he was also a thief is irrelevant to him being a rapist.
But the potential rapist was a thief first an opportunist second.
How do you know that? Does it say that in any article? What makes you so certain that he wasn't a rapist that decided to go along with the robery in order to find a new victim and get some cash on the side?
Not all places are equal, not all targets are equal, and not everyone's needs are the same. And when I'm moving to an area with a much higher crime rate, no reasonable amount of donating to charity can save me from a mugger and there is no reasonable expectation that anything I could have done up to that point would have prevented that mugger from being a mugger. Having a gun or some other tool of intimidation? Might.
And while, statistically, I may be able to "save" more people by preventive measures, I am unable to take any of those preventive measures, and am only able to take reactive measures.
I was critical of the medias and the people who take this sort of anecdotale event to validate a fallacious way of seeing life.
What is so fallacious? The Gurkha had a weapon he had been trained to use. He used his weapon to save the girl. Seems pretty clear that if you have a weapon and are trained to use said weapon, you to could help save the life of another or even your own.
Is it the only option? No, of course not. Is it wrong to use force to protect yourself or someone else? No, it isn't.
But, as goldy or his ban-alt would have us believe the soldier was obviously evil for carrying a weapon capable of killing. Not only that, he should have just let the woman be raped and then cried about how the economic factors were to blame for that ****.
But the potential rapist was a thief first an opportunist second.
How do you know that? Does it say that in any article? What makes you so certain that he wasn't a rapist that decided to go along with the robery in order to find a new victim and get some cash on the side?
How do you know that?
I assume you can read, so I'll just suggest you re-read my post.
All done re-reading?
Ok. You'll note, now that you've read it again, that I never made a single statement. Therefore your "How do you know that?" response was a bit misplaced.
But the potential rapist was a thief first an opportunist second.
How do you know that? Does it say that in any article? What makes you so certain that he wasn't a rapist that decided to go along with the robery in order to find a new victim and get some cash on the side?
How do you know that?
I assume you can read, so I'll just suggest you re-read my post.
All done re-reading?
Ok. You'll note, now that you've read it again, that I never made a single statement. Therefore your "How do you know that?" response was a bit misplaced.
You asked this as a statement: What makes you so certain that he wasn't a rapist that decided to go along with the robery in order to find a new victim and get some cash on the side.
What we know is that 40 people try to rob a train. The rest is speculation.
No. I asked it as a question. I was asking what evidence you had to support your assertion that he was a thief before a rapist.
No. Cause in the US their wouldn't be muggers if this were true. Having the possibility of your victim carrying a gun isn't enough to deterre criminials from being criminals. We need something else.
Better distribution of wealth wouldn't stop people from mugging others here in the U.S., or Canada, or any other part of the world. Some people are greedy and want more. Some people are violent and enjoy harming others.
But it doesn't mean those are appropriate. Thus the role of the government. Putting land mines on my lawn to prevent robbers from enterring might be the best reative measure, but such behavior must be prevented.
I disagree. Not only would it prevent robbers from breakinng into your house, it would also dissuade Jehovah's witnesses from knocking on your door. There would also be the added benefit that it would keep you inside your house and away from innocent women.
It's obvious goldy has neither the ability nor inclination to even attempt to back up his assertions, therefore the game has lost it's appeal.
Now it's time for bed.
No. Cause in the US their wouldn't be muggers if this were true. Having the possibility of your victim carrying a gun isn't enough to deterre criminials from being criminals. We need something else.
Better distribution of wealth wouldn't stop people from mugging others here in the U.S., or Canada, or any other part of the world. Some people are greedy and want more. Some people are violent and enjoy harming others.
Yeah, except the distribution of wealth in the United States is nowhere near equal. The top 0.5% own more wealth than the rest put together. They are made up of corporation Management and Senators (who are in turn paid by corporations and tax payers).
Saying that people wouldn't ****, steal, and kill is more accurate if you factor in that 80% of our behavior is based on our environment. If there is a healthy environment for the development of an individual then the person that rapes, steals, and kills will be the exception. If you look back to the 1920's serial killers were unheard of. They had 1 serial killer. Today they are so common they rarely make the papers anymore. People living below the poverty line in the United States are akin to what that entire country is like. Your choices are try to live an honest hard working life and barely get by, or ****, steal, and kill for a much better standard of living (not morally better, but more comfortable). Its the same way in the United States. You can choose to work a minimum wage job most of your life maybe making a lower level management position and then retiring, the whole time barely getting by, or you can choose to deal drugs like meth or weed and live like a king (until you are caught). Its a no win situation. Of course how many middle class or higher people ****, steal, or kill in the United States? my guess would be not many...
No. Cause in the US their wouldn't be muggers if this were true. Having the possibility of your victim carrying a gun isn't enough to deterre criminials from being criminals. We need something else.
Better distribution of wealth wouldn't stop people from mugging others here in the U.S., or Canada, or any other part of the world. Some people are greedy and want more. Some people are violent and enjoy harming others.
So? Weapons won't be a protection against such people.
Really? Have you ever tried to go up against someone who had a weapon while you were unarmed? I imagine not, so your statement is ludicrous.
But it doesn't mean those are appropriate. Thus the role of the government. Putting land mines on my lawn to prevent robbers from enterring might be the best reative measure, but such behavior must be prevented.
I disagree. Not only would it prevent robbers from breakinng into your house, it would also dissuade Jehovah's witnesses from knocking on your door. There would also be the added benefit that it would keep you inside your house and away from innocent women.
No, you see I do not like innocent women... above 20...
That's quite a statement there, goldy. So do you like innocent women under 20? If so, how far under the age of 20 do you like them?
I think I'm beginning to see why goldy's girlfriend ran, not walked, away from the relationship. Maybe I'm wrong, though...
So? Weapons won't be a protection against such people.
I never said weapons would protect you against such people. Both weapons and social programs have their uses when it comes to dealing with such people. Social programs are great for minimizing the number of people who wold turn to crime in order to sustain themselves and or their families. For social programs to accomplish this, the programs have to be well thought out taking into consideration the problems and needs of the people the programs are meant to help. Will the best thought out social program be able to help every single person and stop crime? Sadly, no, it wouldn't.
Guns, knifes, and other weapons great for stopping others from attacking you, mugging you or others (within you immediate area. A gun is pretty useless when a crime is being committed 10 miles away). Does the possession of a weapon automatically stop others from victimizing you? no, of course not. The weapon owner needs the proper training (like the Gurkha in the story had) in order to effectively use a weapon to protect themselves or others. Will owning a weapon and having excellent training prevent any and all crimes against you? Much like the social programs, no, it won't.
Using only one method to prevent crime is ridiculous. No one method is able to deal with all variables that would lead an individual to committing a crime. Using both social programs and weapons may work better than either individually. This remains to be studied.
But it doesn't mean those are appropriate. Thus the role of the government. Putting land mines on my lawn to prevent robbers from enterring might be the best reative measure, but such behavior must be prevented.
I disagree. Not only would it prevent robbers from breakinng into your house, it would also dissuade Jehovah's witnesses from knocking on your door. There would also be the added benefit that it would keep you inside your house and away from innocent women.
No, you see I do not like innocent women... above 20...
Why 20?
So Goldo, are you purposefully dodging the point of individual agency and taking charge of your situation? Because that's the thing when talking about statistics, they don't apply to the individual. And as long as we're talking about statistics, here's something to consider.
I wondered what you were saying here, but now I understand. But yes, I wish for sublimation of individuality to the collective.
So your response is that yes, in the face of a mugging you should say "this statistically shouldn't be happening!"? That's... absurd.
No. Cause in the US their wouldn't be muggers if this were true. Having the possibility of your victim carrying a gun isn't enough to deterre criminials from being criminals. We need something else.
... you completetly missed the point, I see, and I see I need to explain something.
First, the US has close to 90 guns per 1000 people. That means that even if it was a seperate person to each gun that there was only a 9% chance that any one person had a gun. Now throw in that most people in the US that have one gun have at least two guns, if not more, and that percent drops a fair chunk. Throw in that crime rates are highest in cities which have much stricter gun laws by-and-large and the chance that your target owns a gun drops another fair chunk. Toss in that most people that own don't carry and it drops a huge chunk.
So no. The fact that the United States has roughly 90 guns per 1000 people really doesn't mean that any given mugger is likely to run into someone that's actually packing.
Which means that if you are that one, he's probably going to say "oh ****" and run away.
And again, I'd like to point out reactive vs. proactive. A deterrant is proactive. You make is less likely for the crime to happen in the first place. Gun ownership is not a deterrant as it is not obvious unless you're opting for open carry (in which case it actually is a big detterant. Not many muggers are going to go after someone with a five iron on their hip). However, if someone tries to mug me and I pull out a pistol and say "****, I'm from mother-****ing Texas1. Do you really wanna piece of this?" then I've probably just saved myself and scared the piss out of them.
So is the rather remote possibility that any given Joe on the street might be armed much of a deterrant? No. In the instance that the specific Joe you've chosen does happen to be armed is the situation likely to end very differently then it would have if they weren't armed? Yes.
And while, statistically, I may be able to "save" more people by preventive measures, I am unable to take any of those preventive measures, and am only able to take reactive measures.
But it doesn't mean those are appropriate. Thus the role of the government. Putting land mines on my lawn to prevent robbers from enterring might be the best reative measure, but such behavior must be prevented.
Goldo, every week I read about a couple of gay men that got beat up or killed, normally in big cities. So don't talk to me about the role of government, because when the government is clearly unable or unwilling to correct a situation it becomes (deserved or not) the burden of the individual to protect themselves, first and foremost.
Would it be best if there was no need to take special measures to ensure my own safety? Yes. Is that reality? No. And unfortunately I have to live in reality, so guess what I'm going to do?
________
1A quarter true. My paternal-grandmother is Texan.
First, the US has close to 90 guns per 1000 people. That means that even if it was a seperate person to each gun that there was only a 9% chance that any one person had a gun.
Actually, with those numbers, it would be more like 0.9%.
Ok, sleepy time. See ya tomorrow, arch-enemies.
Seriously, you are one Emo hipsters.
First, the US has close to 90 guns per 1000 people. That means that even if it was a seperate person to each gun that there was only a 9% chance that any one person had a gun.
Actually, with those numbers, it would be more like 0.9%.
Two things, (1) ... check your math. (90/1000) = 0.09 = 9%.
(2) I misremembered the numbers. It's actually closer to 90 guns per 100 people. A few things to note about that though... about 25% of US adults owned all the guns, with 75% of those gun owners possessing two or more. The rest is all dead-on though, which comes down to the chances of you running into any non-cop with a gun on their person in a big city to very, very low.
Edit: Friggin' messy quotes.
Two things, (1) ... check your math. (90/1000) = 0.09 = 9%.
(2) I misremembered the numbers. It's actually closer to 90 guns per 100 people. A few things to note about that though... about 25% of US adults owned all the guns, with 75% of those gun owners possessing two or more. The rest is all dead-on though, which comes down to the chances of you running into any non-cop with a gun on their person in a big city to very, very low.
Whoops... for some reason I read 9 out of 1000. missed the 0 after the 9.
No, yours is. Go for your gun when one is pointed at you. You won't even dare to budge.
Can we please avoid calling each other cowards over the internet? It's stupid.
That said... if you have a gun and are trained to use it? Uh, yeah... that's not such a good bet.
Throw in that a rather large number of attempted and successful muggings are done at knife point, that people assaulted for whatever reason are assaulted with bats and bottles and whatever else is on hand, and other considerations... and yeah, if you're in a violent altercation and you're packing, there's a fair chance that you're actually the most armed person there. And if you're carrying? In America? You've probably got the training in how to use it (you had to satisfy the cops that you weren't a danger, after all.)
Yeah, except the distribution of wealth in the United States is nowhere near equal. The top 0.5% own more wealth than the rest put together. They are made up of corporation Management and Senators (who are in turn paid by corporations and tax payers).
The distribution of wealth doesn't have to b equal. It would be nice if it was. The distribution of wealth is not the cause of ****.
Saying that people wouldn't ****, steal, and kill is more accurate if you factor in that 80% of our behavior is based on our environment. If there is a healthy environment for the development of an individual then the person that rapes, steals, and kills will be the exception.
Interesting numbers you have there. 80% you say? How did you come up with this number? Are you saying that people who ****, steal, and kill are the norm?
If you look back to the 1920's serial killers were unheard of. They had 1 serial killer. Today they are so common they rarely make the papers anymore.
We have developed better ways of communication. In the 1920s serial killers being unheard of had more to do with there being less ways to get information out to be people than some sudden rise in serial killers. Also, forensic science has come a long way since the 1920s. It is much easier to link 2 or more murders today than it would have been nearly a century ago.
People living below the poverty line in the United States are akin to what that entire country is like. Your choices are try to live an honest hard working life and barely get by, or ****, steal, and kill for a much better standard of living (not morally better, but more comfortable). Its the same way in the United States. You can choose to work a minimum wage job most of your life maybe making a lower level management position and then retiring, the whole time barely getting by, or you can choose to deal drugs like meth or weed and live like a king (until you are caught). Its a no win situation. Of course how many middle class or higher people ****, steal, or kill in the United States? my guess would be not many...
My guess is that you've never met the common drug dealer. I don't mean the ones you see on TV. I mean the guy on the street selling crack, or weed or whatever drug sells in that area. They don't make much more than minimum wage. You forget, they have suppliers. They have people above them that get a bigger cut of he money than the average drug dealer. Selling drugs and getting rich of of it is not a common thing. TV lies to you.
If only a condom for quotes existed... and I wasn't drunk. I bet you can't tell the difference between sober and drunk.
Me not being able to tell the difference between you sober and you drunk says far more about you than me.
Is this better HS?
It's obvious goldy has neither the ability nor inclination to even attempt to back up his assertions, therefore the game has lost it's appeal.
Now it's time for bed.
Much appreciated.
No. Cause in the US their wouldn't be muggers if this were true. Having the possibility of your victim carrying a gun isn't enough to deterre criminials from being criminals. We need something else.
Better distribution of wealth wouldn't stop people from mugging others here in the U.S., or Canada, or any other part of the world. Some people are greedy and want more. Some people are violent and enjoy harming others.
Yeah, except the distribution of wealth in the United States is nowhere near equal. The top 0.5% own more wealth than the rest put together. They are made up of corporation Management and Senators (who are in turn paid by corporations and tax payers).
Saying that people wouldn't ****, steal, and kill is more accurate if you factor in that 80% of our behavior is based on our environment. If there is a healthy environment for the development of an individual then the person that rapes, steals, and kills will be the exception. If you look back to the 1920's serial killers were unheard of. They had 1 serial killer. Today they are so common they rarely make the papers anymore. People living below the poverty line in the United States are akin to what that entire country is like. Your choices are try to live an honest hard working life and barely get by, or ****, steal, and kill for a much better standard of living (not morally better, but more comfortable). Its the same way in the United States. You can choose to work a minimum wage job most of your life maybe making a lower level management position and then retiring, the whole time barely getting by, or you can choose to deal drugs like meth or weed and live like a king (until you are caught). Its a no win situation. Of course how many middle class or higher people ****, steal, or kill in the United States? my guess would be not many...
I scrolled down and tried to find where someone addressed this post and didn't see it. If someone addressed it, I preemptively apologize for possibly repeating what could have been said.
Okay, the nurture vs nature argument is invalid. It is nature and environment that leads to most cases of violent criminals. There are some cases where too much of one or the other can create a criminal but AFAIK this is the exception not the rule.
I'll illustrate with myself.
I'm a person that is prone to violence. I also grew up in what some would call a crap environment. As such it is somewhat acceptable that I turned out to be violent. The problem is violence was in my nature and even if I grew up in the "perfect" environment, I would still be prone to violence.
The argument also falls apart when you consider the millions of people (in the US) who grow up in "crap" environments and never become violent or criminals because it isn't in their nature.
Most criminals (again AFAIK) are the result of a perfect storm of nature and nurture. Again, there are also people who are just violent period and no amount of social programs or healthy environments is going to change that.
The number 1 reason I do not commit violence today is fear of imprisonment. That is followed immediately by the possibility that I might run into someone that's a little bit tougher, a little bit meaner, and may be better armed than I am.
So in my case, guns do prevent crime.
Just sayin'.
The distribution of wealth doesn't have to be equal. It would be nice if it was. The distribution of wealth is not the cause of ****.
No environment is the cause of **** and a better home environment is easier to come by with wealth. Thus indirectly wealth is a cause of **** (not the only one).
Interesting numbers you have there. 80% you say? How did you come up with this number? Are you saying that people who ****, steal, and kill are the norm?
Its taught in schools. 80% environment 20% biology (note: I'm sure I could find some studies to back it up, but it should be common knowledge). No I say that each individual is influenced by their 80% environment, so when someone does commit **** it is because their environment said it was ok. It may have been that sexual indecency was common at home or in schools, objectifying women was the norm, or maybe some deeper disturbance happened that led to it. Combine this with the 20% biology (maybe a genetic predisposition to anger and violence) and you get a ****. A better environment such as stricter rules enforced, threats of imprisonment, teaching that women are people too, that kind of stuff could have prevented ****. Each individual has free will, but free will is used to determine which choice out of those known should be followed. If there is no distinction between **** and sex, then the choice is not known.
We have developed better ways of communication. In the 1920s serial killers being unheard of had more to do with there being less ways to get information out to be people than some sudden rise in serial killers. Also, forensic science has come a long way since the 1920s. It is much easier to link 2 or more murders today than it would have been nearly a century ago.
Except that they go back all the time and try to find links and can't. Home life was just better back then. There were more morals instilled. Ideas of morals between groups was much closer. Your science argument assumes that they didn't catch the killers, so there should be a number of cases that are unknown or unsolved. This isn't the case. There are as many unsolved cases then as there are now (or generally the same, not exactly).
My guess is that you've never met the common drug dealer. I don't mean the ones you see on TV. I mean the guy on the street selling crack, or weed or whatever drug sells in that area. They don't make much more than minimum wage. You forget, they have suppliers. They have people above them that get a bigger cut of he money than the average drug dealer. Selling drugs and getting rich of of it is not a common thing. TV lies to you.
I'm not talking about your 3rd tier down drug dealer. I'm talking about the people that make meth or grow pot in their homes and sell it (which is on the rise in the United States) to get rich. I hear in some parts of Canada its so bad that they have citizen watches to try to find them. Trust me I've met some drug dealers in my day...
I am assuming that when you go to bed at night you lock the door(s) to your home, right? That means that you go to bed afraid every nigh, right?
actaully, I don't. (my backdoor remains unlocked; and my front door locks automatically, but it has a glass front which can be broken or cut quite easely).
I only protect my stuff against theft of opportunity (I lock my bike. I live in a student city - if I don't lock my bike, chances are high he's gone within a week), but not against theft of malice. If they really want my stuff, a simple lock won't stop them. (I recon, in an hour, you can extract the glass from a window; do it during daylight while nobodies home)
It's obvious goldy has neither the ability nor inclination to even attempt to back up his assertions, therefore the game has lost it's appeal.
but he has a valid point.
You asked for evidence and told you that he was speculating - with as appendum that everyone here is speculating.
You can't say that you're not speculating. the word bandit gets a negative connotation. For all we know, perhaps there were 39 guys simply trying to feed there family, and one guy who went too far ... But since they ware labeled bandits, and because 1 potential rapist was amongst them, they apparently don't get any benefit of doubt.
Question:
Does anyone know the punishment for **** and attempted **** in the U.S. ?
Because it made me think ... in Belgium its possible that the gov sews him: he has taken justice into his own hands and possibly commited manslaughter.
(ref. in Belgium, a jeweler who got robbed shot a fleeing thief & got sewed for it. We value human life quite high, you see)
And for that mather does anyone know the punishment of commiting a robery with a rapist in the gang?
If he had chased down the bandits after they'd run away or surrendered with the intention of inflicting harm on them, he could (and probably would) have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon, aggrivated assault, and possibly attempted murder.
Edit: I could be wrong, but I believe the base federal minimum sentence for **** is 97 months with a maximum of 210 months. In cases of aggrivated sexual abuse the minimum is (I believe) 235 months and the maximum is life. I'm not a lawyer, so I could easily be mistaken.
Guns ARE a crime deterrant.
In my state, if your life, property, or freedom are AT RISK, then deadly force is permitted within reason. I stand by this all the way.
besides that carrying a knife was part of his culture,
someone can draw and fire a shot in under half a second; the current world record for open style standing blanks is 0.208 seconds--and that includes the time to react to the signal. Given that the average human reaction time is around 0.2 to 0.25 seconds, the round is over before most people can react. The reaction times of the best fast draw shooters is 0.145 seconds, which means that the gun is cocked, drawn, aimed (from the hip), and fired in just over 0.06 seconds.
so yes, at gunpoint you still have a pretty fair chance of winning.
To begin with, yes, its a feel good story, I felt good when I read it.
yes, but I also feel good when I watch the MK movies - or over-the-top-gore B-movies - while these are hardly feel good movies.
In my state, if your life, property, or freedom are AT RISK, then deadly force is permitted within reason. I stand by this all the way.
I totally agree. though I probbably have a different degree of within reason.
No environment is the cause of **** and a better home environment is easier to come by with wealth. Thus indirectly wealth is a cause of **** (not the only one).
The rich also commit ****. Wealth has nothing to do with it occurring.
Its taught in schools. 80% environment 20% biology (note: I'm sure I could find some studies to back it up, but it should be common knowledge). No I say that each individual is influenced by their 80% environment, so when someone does commit **** it is because their environment said it was ok. It may have been that sexual indecency was common at home or in schools, objectifying women was the norm, or maybe some deeper disturbance happened that led to it. Combine this with the 20% biology (maybe a genetic predisposition to anger and violence) and you get a ****. A better environment such as stricter rules enforced, threats of imprisonment, teaching that women are people too, that kind of stuff could have prevented ****. Each individual has free will, but free will is used to determine which choice out of those known should be followed. If there is no distinction between **** and sex, then the choice is not known.
There is no study that has determined that 80% of your behavior is determined by your environment and 20% is determined by your genetics. Whatever school taught this to you did you a disservice. I want to see you produce some of these studies that you claim would back your claim up. The argument of nature vs nurture has not been resolved.
Also, if you are talking bout the 1920s, you should be aware that it was probably more likely that women were being objectified and treated as less than human back then as opposed to today. Today women can vote. It wasn't until the 19th amendment was ratified in 1920 that women were allowed to vote. Women are way better off today than they were back in the 1920s.
Except that they go back all the time and try to find links and can't. Home life was just better back then. There were more morals instilled. Ideas of morals between groups was much closer. Your science argument assumes that they didn't catch the killers, so there should be a number of cases that are unknown or unsolved. This isn't the case. There are as many unsolved cases then as there are now (or generally the same, not exactly).
The are cases today that are not solved. There are crimes today that are not detected. With all the advances in science and technology that we have made, we still cannot catch and determine who committed 100% percent of the crimes that occur. In he 1920s this was even worse. Today you could run a DNA test on fluids left behind during a **** and determine if the suspect you have is the one that had sex with the victim. Are you telling me that in the 1920s this was possible?
I'm not talking about your 3rd tier down drug dealer. I'm talking about the people that make meth or grow pot in their homes and sell it (which is on the rise in the United States) to get rich. I hear in some parts of Canada its so bad that they have citizen watches to try to find them. Trust me I've met some drug dealers in my day...
Actually, people that make meth usually don't do it in their homes. You know, the fumes and stuff are pretty dangerous. Not to mention the chance of your meth lab blowing your house up. The people that grow weed at home and grow enough of it go make serious money off of it, have money to begin with. It takes a lot of money to set up a grow-house. You also need to have people who will sell this stuff for you and you need a way to enforce your authority. While it is possible for some poor kid to start out small and grow into a big time drug dealer with his/her own grow-houses and meth labs, it is not very likely.
To begin with, yes, its a feel good story, I felt good when I read it.
yes, but I also feel good when I watch the MK movies - or over-the-top-gore B-movies - while these are hardly feel good movies.In my state, if your life, property, or freedom are AT RISK, then deadly force is permitted within reason. I stand by this all the way.
I totally agree. though I probbably have a different degree of within reason.
I'm looking at "feel good story" not as a phrase but from a more logical meaning of actually feeling good. So we agree here.
I also agree with the different degrees of within reason, thats why I put that in there, so I feel that we pretty much agree.
Now lets consider this, he couldn't attack just the rapist and still live, at first he was protecting one life now he's protecting two possibly more at the second attack and the odds keeps increasing that a robber will use deadly force so then it becomes a situation of him protecting the train, normally this would be a bad idea but he was up to the challenge and came through, it could have went bad but it didn't. Its justified, yay!
Question:
Does anyone know the punishment for **** and attempted **** in the U.S. ?
Because it made me think ... in Belgium its possible that the gov sews him: he has taken justice into his own hands and possibly commited manslaughter.
(ref. in Belgium, a jeweler who got robbed shot a fleeing thief & got sewed for it. We value human life quite high, you see)
And for that mather does anyone know the punishment of commiting a robery with a rapist in the gang?
It's one thing to shoot a person that is running away as opposed to shooting a person who is coming at you with a weapon. If they are running away, it can be assumed that they are no longer a threat, thus deadly force is not needed to protect yourself. If he is coming at you with a weapon, it is reasonable to assume that he is going to harm you and the use of deadly force is warranted. I doubt the Gurkha chased the people he killed on the train. More than likely the people that were killed and injured were probably attacking him. They may have felt emboldened by the fact that they had overwhelming numbers.
As to the punishment for ****, it's jail time. I took a criminology class a few years agon and the professor mentioned that back in the day, the crime of **** was seeing as such a violation that the punishment was the death penalty. It was changed because many **** victims were murdered in order for there to not be any eye witness. I'm not sure if he is right about hat, but he had been a cop for over 30 years so who knows.
I'm not sure that there is a difference between committing a theft with another person who is not a rapist and committing a theft with a person who is a rapist. Unless this rapist rapes the victim during the theft, it should have no bearing as to the consequences and possible punishment.
Its taught in schools. 80% environment 20% biology (note: I'm sure I could find some studies to back it up, but it should be common knowledge).
Rubbish. There is no hard-and-fast percentage. Any school which teaches this as a "fact" is not one I would permit my children to attend.
Now lets consider this, he couldn't attack just the rapist and still live, at first he was protecting one life now he's protecting two possibly more at the second attack and the odds keeps increasing that a robber will use deadly force so then it becomes a situation of him protecting the train, normally this would be a bad idea but he was up to the challenge and came through, it could have went bad but it didn't. It could be justified, yay!
bolded a change I made, which I feel is important.
bolded a change I made, which I feel is important.
. I doubt the Gurkha chased the people he killed on the train. More than likely the people that were killed and injured were probably attacking him.
ALL 11 OF THEM? in a narrow train (as specified by the article)? That must have been a bunch of skinny bandits, because otherwise, I'm seeing some spacial issues if the Gurkha doesn't chase people ...
Its taught in schools. 80% environment 20% biology (note: I'm sure I could find some studies to back it up, but it should be common knowledge).
Rubbish. There is no hard-and-fast percentage. Any school which teaches this as a "fact" is not one I would permit my children to attend.
It was all public school in the United States at the time.
Here is a link to some of the evidence.
Its doesn't quote the exact percentage, but it was a ten second search. I'm sure you can find a more accurate one that counts if you spend say 20-30 seconds on it...
However, there will (not may) be times when trouble will actively seek you out, because the biker dude has nothing better to do, or the junkie that still looks respectable has marked you for a little cash withdrawl, or you just happen to be the wrong skin color, or you happen to be a member of the working class. That's when all three factors (ownership, knowledge/willingness, awareness) come into play: You have the weapon and know how to use it, you are willing to use it, and you are aware of your surroundings. You can see the bad guy coming towards you. It doesn't matter why you are his target; he's coming for you, and he intends no good towards you. Maybe he'll be brutal, maybe he'll be coy, but have no doubt, you are his target.
What I was taught was that I need to escape if I can. If I can't, and peaceful resolution is not possible, then you have to exercise that last option.
I will say this: In all the time that I have been carrying concealed, legally, I have never had to use my weapon. I hope that I go through my whole life and never have to take another human life in self defense. However, I am aware that I may have to do just that, and I hope that if/when that time comes, that I will do so righteously, and without hesitation.
Owning a gun and/or having a gun on your person does NOT make you invulnerable. You MUST be aware of your situation and your surroundings. As should be obvious to anyone with any kind of sense, you do not go into places there you are likely to get into a fight (biker bar, Klan meeting, clearly marked gangsta territory) if you can possibly help it, nor do you seek to fight with someone for the sake of fighting; such a thing is suicidal behavior.
However, there will (not may) be times when trouble will actively seek you out, because the biker dude has nothing better to do, or the junkie that still looks respectable has marked you for a little cash withdrawl, or you just happen to be the wrong skin color, or you happen to be a member of the working class. That's when all three factors (ownership, knowledge/willingness, awareness) come into play: You have the weapon and know how to use it, you are willing to use it, and you are aware of your surroundings. You can see the bad guy coming towards you. It doesn't matter why you are his target; he's coming for you, and he intends no good towards you. Maybe he'll be brutal, maybe he'll be coy, but have no doubt, you are his target.
What I was taught was that I need to escape if I can. If I can't, and peaceful resolution is not possible, then you have to exercise that last option.
I will say this: In all the time that I have been carrying concealed, legally, I have never had to use my weapon. I hope that I go through my whole life and never have to take another human life in self defense. However, I am aware that I may have to do just that, and I hope that if/when that time comes, that I will do so righteously, and without hesitation.
Very well said.
Question:
Does anyone know the punishment for **** and attempted **** in the U.S. ?
Because it made me think ... in Belgium its possible that the gov sews him: he has taken justice into his own hands and possibly commited manslaughter.
(ref. in Belgium, a jeweler who got robbed shot a fleeing thief & got sewed for it. We value human life quite high, you see)
The thing with the US is that the laws vary by jurisdiction. I'm not sure what the federal laws are but in most cases it will actually depend on state laws. I think most if not all states allow for life in prison and some may even give the death penalty. Under military law the maximum penalty is death, but the military has a very specific definition of **** (nonconsentual vaginal penetration by a penis, under UCMJ only men can be charged with **** and only for performing the above said act on a woman) whereas some states may have broader ones to account for anal sex, cases other than a man vs a woman, etc.
And for that mather does anyone know the punishment of commiting a robery with a rapist in the gang?
In this case all 40 men could be charged with that **** (again there could be some catch hidden in a specific state's laws but this tends to be the norm). Basically, once two or more people decide to commit a crime together, they are all responsible for what the others do in the course of that crime.
It's just like if you and a buddy decide to rob a gas station. You guys agree that you will drive up, he will get out, brandish a gun, get the money, and then you drive him away. You make it very clear to him that no one is supposed to be harmed. In the course of the robbery, he shoots the gas station clerk and kills him, and you drive him away. Even though this was not your intent and you in fact were vehemently against this occuring, you can now be charged with murder.
On the other hand, if your buddy asks you for a ride to the gas station, you take him there, and he uses a silenced weapon or a knife or something to kill the clerk while you are in the car without your knowledge, and afterwards he gets in and you drive him home, you are not responsible since you were not knowingly participating in any crime. The caveat of course is that you'd have to try to prove this somehow or else run the risk of people assuming you were in on the plan.
Does that make sense?
ALL 11 OF THEM? in a narrow train (as specified by the article)? That must have been a bunch of skinny bandits, because otherwise, I'm seeing some spacial issues if the Gurkha doesn't chase people ...
Right. Cuz there's no way the bandits could or would have possibly run toward the Ghurka. He simply had to chase them all down. Nevermind the fact that these bandits had the audacity to attack a train full of people and then pull a girl aside to **** her in front of at least one witness. Nope, he had to go chasing after these poor, timid souls that were just trying to rob and **** a few people to better their situation in life.
Not everyone is so willing to run away as many here seem to think they should be. It's easy as hell to argue when you want to pick one side and then declare it as superior. Try looking past the way you think things should be and at how they really are. I'm obviously not saying I know for certain that these men rushed the Ghurka in an attempt to stop him from, you know, stopping them, but, to me, it seems a hell of a lot more plausible than a trained military man deciding to go on a killing spree after he had already decided to simply give up his belongings and only went into action when a girl was threatened with ****.
________________________
As far as people deciding not to protect themselves with weapons or physical response, that's fine with me so long as they don't do me the injustice of trying to make their decision something they'd see forced on everyone. What works for you may not work for me. To think otherwise is stupid. And dangerous to everyone that's not you. Don't do it.
There's also some understood misunderstanding here from the anti-gun crowd. Understood because to them, largely, guns are an icky bad no-no that they never bother to educate themselves about cuz it's just not a good thing to read about. In the States, concealed carry and open carry are options to some people. Not all, some. Not every gun owner, some. That means that the number of guns legally owned doesn't mean a whole lot as far as stats go concerning carry. Cuz carry laws vary by state and are restrictive. So no, right now a criminal can't assume his mark is packin'. Cuz odds are they aren't. There's a chance, sure, but not quite high enough to make it a near certainty. And that's why people are trying to make carry an option that's available to more people. So you can't say 'well, in the States criminals think everybody has a gun already' cuz that's just not the case. Yet. As more and more states approve concealed carry, open carry and Castle Doctrine, though, we'll get close to that state. Until then, there's nothing in the way of evidence to say carry doesn't work or that guns are not a deterrent.
Its taught in schools. 80% environment 20% biology (note: I'm sure I could find some studies to back it up, but it should be common knowledge).
Rubbish. There is no hard-and-fast percentage. Any school which teaches this as a "fact" is not one I would permit my children to attend.
It was all public school in the United States at the time.
Here is a link to some of the evidence.
Its doesn't quote the exact percentage, but it was a ten second search. I'm sure you can find a more accurate one that counts if you spend say 20-30 seconds on it...
You could look for an hour or more, you aren't going to find any article that gives you percentages for genes and environment when it comes to development. Your claim that it was all public schools in the U.S. at the time is also a load of BS. I attended a public school and there was no teacher stupid enough to make such a claim. Unless you want to argue that the public school I attended was the most amazing public school in the U.S. with the most intelligent teachers and faculty.
If this specific case had happened in the US, it would have clearly fallen under "Self Defense", and any charges brought against Bishnu Shrestha would have been dropped. The term "self defense" is a little misleading, because it's applied to protecting others from immediate harm as well as ones self.
If he had chased down the bandits after they'd run away or surrendered with the intention of inflicting harm on them, he could (and probably would) have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon, aggrivated assault, and possibly attempted murder.
Edit: I could be wrong, but I believe the base federal minimum sentence for **** is 97 months with a maximum of 210 months. In cases of aggrivated sexual abuse the minimum is (I believe) 235 months and the maximum is life. I'm not a lawyer, so I could easily be mistaken.
Your lack of understanding of the U.S. legal system is painfully obvious. As I said previously, if a person who has robbed you is running away, they are no longer a danger to you. Can it be argued that they are? Sure it can. You would have to show that the person was running away from you, but only temporarily as they meant to return with a weapon or another person in order to inflict greater harm upon you. You have to demonstrate that even if they are running away, they still represent a danger to you in order to claim self-defense. There are several cases where this sort of thing has happened and people have gone to jail for killing someone who was running away.
Your lack of understanding of the U.S. legal system is painfully obvious. As I said previously, if a person who has robbed you is running away, they are no longer a danger to you. Can it be argued that they are? Sure it can. You would have to show that the person was running away from you, but only temporarily as they meant to return with a weapon or another person in order to inflict greater harm upon you. You have to demonstrate that even if they are running away, they still represent a danger to you in order to claim self-defense. There are several cases where this sort of thing has happened and people have gone to jail for killing someone who was running away.
Your lack of reading comprehension is painfully obvious. I stated, "If he had chased down the bandits after they'd run away or surrendered with the intention of inflicting harm on them, he could (and probably would) have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon, aggrivated assault, and possibly attempted murder." Which part of that is wrong?
Your lack of reading comprehension is painfully obvious. I stated, "If he had chased down the bandits after they'd run away or surrendered with the intention of inflicting harm on them, he could (and probably would) have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon, aggrivated assault, and possibly attempted murder." Which part of that is wrong?
Actually, what you said was:
If this specific case had happened in the US, it would have clearly fallen under "Self Defense", and any charges brought against Bishnu Shrestha would have been dropped. The term "self defense" is a little misleading, because it's applied to protecting others from immediate harm as well as ones self.
You may want to read what you write next time.
Owning a gun and/or having a gun on your person does NOT make you invulnerable.
indeed. look at the bandits ...
However, there will (not may) be times when trouble will actively seek you out, because the biker dude has nothing better to do, or the junkie that still looks respectable has marked you for a little cash withdrawl, or you just happen to be the wrong skin color, or you happen to be a member of the working class.
yeah... maybe, but for some reason, that never happens to me.
And I live in the cheaper pary of the city, with a large number of foreigners (can't come up with an english pollitical correct word ...)
Perhaps because I don't look threatening or don't look like I'm looking for trouble ...
YThe caveat of course is that you'd have to try to prove this somehow or else run the risk of people assuming you were in on the plan.
Does that make sense?
anything but that last sentence. (innocent until proven guilty and such)
Right. Cuz there's no way the bandits could or would have possibly run toward the Ghurka.
you have any idea what kind of space 10 bodies take? on a narrow train?
theres IS no way the bandits (or at least the last few) could have run towards the ghurka. A simple matter of space/volume shortage.
Nevermind the fact that these bandits had the audacity to attack a train full of people and then pull a girl aside to **** her in front of at least one witness.
Ah, but here you're baslessly assuming and generelizing that the bandits all are rapists.
As explained - For all we know we're talking about 39 poor husbands trying to feed their family, with no other resort then to turn to robbery; and 1 guy who takes it too far.
Thus, to correct your conclusion - as far as we know, it might have been (used italic & strikeout to edit)
"Nope, he had to go chasing after these poor, timid souls that were just trying to rob and **** a few people to better their horrible inhumane situation in life, and hung out with the wrong guy.
" To assume all the bandits were rapists, is like assuming that everyone that likes a sport is a hooligan. - its judging a group of people by their worst example.
you have any idea what kind of space 10 bodies take? on a narrow train?
theres IS no way the bandits (or at least the last few) could have run towards the ghurka. A simple matter of space/volume shortage.
You assume that all 10 bandits are running at the Gurkha shoulder to shoulder. If they came at him one at a time, they would have the same ease of movement as the Gurkha had. In any case, seeing as it is unclear how big the train was, how crowded the train was, and who chased who, it is unfair to say that they Gurkha was wrong for doing this. He managed to save a girl from being raped and that should be seen as a good act, regardless of the circumstances that made these 40 men into bandits.
Nevermind the fact that these bandits had the audacity to attack a train full of people and then pull a girl aside to **** her in front of at least one witness.
Ah, but here you're baslessly assuming and generelizing that the bandits all are rapists.
As explained - For all we know we're talking about 39 poor husbands trying to feed their family, with no other resort then to turn to robbery; and 1 guy who takes it too far.
Interesting. You can rationalize why these 40 men may have been bandits, but you fail to sympathize with the train passengers that may also have been poor men and women trying to feed their own families.
The bandits could have been poor people trying to feed their families, but they are going about it the wrong way. By victimizing other poor people, these andits put themselves in a situation that had the possibility of someone hurting them. That 11 men were killed is the fault of the bandits who grabbed the girl to try and **** her. The article is unclear as to how many men grabbed her, so we can't argue about one man grabbing her and 39 others that were just there. It could have been only one, but it could have been many more.In the end, they put themselves in a bad situation and suffered the consequences.
you have any idea what kind of space 10 bodies take? on a narrow train?
theres IS no way the bandits (or at least the last few) could have run towards the ghurka. A simple matter of space/volume shortage.
You assume that all 10 bandits are running at the Gurkha shoulder to shoulder. If they came at him one at a time, they would have the same ease of movement as the Gurkha had. In any case, seeing as it is unclear how big the train was, how crowded the train was, and who chased who, it is unfair to say that they Gurkha was wrong for doing this. He managed to save a girl from being raped and that should be seen as a good act, regardless of the circumstances that made these 40 men into bandits.
the article speaks that the train was narrow - giving the ghurka and definate advantage.
But I don't assume they run to him shoulder to shoulder:
11 guys -----(some distance?) -------------> Ghurka
10 guys ------------------------> 1 corse ----> Ghurka
9 guys --------------------------> 2 corses --> Ghurka
8 guys --------------------------> 3 corses --> Ghurka
...
1 guys ------------------------ > 10 bodies--> Ghurka
So, this last guy, first needs to get passed all his wounded collegues, step over the dead bodies of his comrads, and THEN face the guy who did all that ... al that on in a narrow space.
it is unfair to say that they Gurkha was wrong for doing this.
define *this*. - because this fall unders under end justifying the means. Its it wrong to slaughter and severly wound 10 men who were simply trying to provide for their family, because one other man tried tied to **** a girl.*
*: if anyone wasn't following the discussion - as far as we know, that might be the case.
Interesting. You can rationalize why these 40 men may have been bandits, but you fail to sympathize with the train passengers that may also have been poor men and women trying to feed their own families.
The bandits could have been poor people trying to feed their families, but they are going about it the wrong way.
No, I can (and do) sympathize, but but I'm leaving that out of the discussion.
Because then we'dd probbably end up with blaming the system - and I don't want to reopen that can of wurms. (Ref. Goldo)
Fantatsic feel good story, isn't it? 39 men forced by proverty into banditry, highjacking a train full of people who are in the same economical crisis, and in the mids an innocent girl who's almost raped, and an ex-militairy foreigner forced to kill and maim people to regain an ounce of law in this lawless world. I'm feeling warm and fuzzy just thinking about it. :holding up my sarcasm sign:
Bishnu Shrestha is the Gurkha.
I'm assuming he only killed/injured those bandits that were actively attempting to harm him as he stopped the **** (which clearly falls under self defense).
The entire post was in response to
Because it made me think ... in Belgium its possible that the gov sews him: he has taken justice into his own hands and possibly commited manslaughter.
(ref. in Belgium, a jeweler who got robbed shot a fleeing thief & got sewed for it. We value human life quite high, you see)
which I didn't quote in defference to your earlier stated desire for less quote-blocks.
In summation, what I was saying was:
The Gurkha would not have been charged with a crime unless there was compelling evidence showing that he chased down fleeing bandits with the intention of harming them (which I don't believe to be the case).
the article speaks that the train was narrow - giving the ghurka and definate advantage.
But I don't assume they run to him shoulder to shoulder:
11 guys -----(some distance?) -------------> Ghurka
10 guys ------------------------> 1 corse ----> Ghurka
9 guys --------------------------> 2 corses --> Ghurka
8 guys --------------------------> 3 corses --> Ghurka
...
1 guys ------------------------ > 10 bodies--> Ghurka
So, this last guy, first needs to get passed all his wounded collegues, step over the dead bodies of his comrads, and THEN face the guy who did all that ... al that on in a narrow space.
Or after the Gurkha killed the first guy, the guy behind the fallen bandit could have stepped up. It is unclear from the article how the fight occurred. however, it is a bit of a stretch to think that a guy who originally had resigned himself to letting the bandits take his stuff, would suddenly chase 40 men, killing 11 and wounding 8. He would also have to be extremely fast. Think about it, he has to kill one guy while the others are running, chase the next guy down, kill him and then go after the next one. Of course we could need to know where he stabbed them. If every man had been stabbed in the back, then yes, we could be right in assuming that he chased them and butchered them. This information is missing from the article.
it is unfair to say that they Gurkha was wrong for doing this.
define *this*. - because this fall unders under end justifying the means. Its it wrong to slaughter and severly wound 10 men who were simply trying to provide for their family, because one other man tried tied to **** a girl.*
*: if anyone wasn't following the discussion - as far as we know, that might be the case.
Again, you are assuming that it was only one man who grabbed the girl and wanted to **** her. The articles states:
"When the bandits reached Shrestha, he was ready to give up his valuables, but then the 18 year old girl sitting next to him was grabbed by the robbers, who wanted to **** her."
I am inclined to assume it was more than one bandit who wanted to **** her since the articles specifies "robbers."
Also, these men who died were not simply trying to provide for their families. They were trying to robbed other hard-working people of their possessions. The passengers on the train were held and gun, knife, and sword point and had their possessions, for which they worked and paid for, taken from them. These bandits are far from good people trying to provide for families. The people on the train did not resort to violence and crime in order to provide for themselves and their families.
You claim that ***snip***- because this fall unders under end justifying the means. Its it wrong to slaughter and severly wound 10 men who were simply trying to provide for their family, because one other man tried tied to **** a girl. However, robbing people on a train in order to provide for these hypothetical families (the bandits's real motivations are unknown) is exactly an ends justifies the means argument. It's o.k. for these bandits to rob civilians on a train because they have to provide for hypothetical families, but it is not o.k. for a single Gurkha to kill some of those bandits in order to defend a girl who was going to be rapped? Your logic seems flawed.
Interesting. You can rationalize why these 40 men may have been bandits, but you fail to sympathize with the train passengers that may also have been poor men and women trying to feed their own families.The bandits could have been poor people trying to feed their families, but they are going about it the wrong way.
No, I can (and do) sympathize, but but I'm leaving that out of the discussion.
Because then we'dd probbably end up with blaming the system - and I don't want to reopen that can of wurms. (Ref. Goldo)
You are blaming the system.
Fantatsic feel good story, isn't it? 39 men forced by proverty into banditry, highjacking a train full of people who are in the same economical crisis, and in the mids an innocent girl who's almost raped, and an ex-militairy foreigner forced to kill and maim people to regain an ounce of law in this lawless world. I'm feeling warm and fuzzy just thinking about it. :holding up my sarcasm sign:
All you have done is blame the system. The system didn't get on the train and put guns, knives, and swords to people and demand that they give up their stuff. The system didn't provide guns, knives, and swords to the bandits. The system did not plan the train robbery. The system did not grab an 18 year old girl and try to **** her. Men did. these men that got on the train are the ones responsible for their actions. There are many poor people in India. Why is it that not all of them board trains and rob them? Why don't all the poor in the world rob others to provide for their families?
These actions are the action of men, who may or may not be desperately trying to feed families which they may or may not have.
Ok HS. Let me clarify for you since we're actually both making the same assumptions here.
Bishnu Shrestha is the Gurkha.
I'm assuming he only killed/injured those bandits that were actively attempting to harm him as he stopped the **** (which clearly falls under self defense).
The entire post was in response to
Because it made me think ... in Belgium its possible that the gov sews him: he has taken justice into his own hands and possibly commited manslaughter.
(ref. in Belgium, a jeweler who got robbed shot a fleeing thief & got sewed for it. We value human life quite high, you see)
which I didn't quote in defference to your earlier stated desire for less quote-blocks.
In summation, what I was saying was:
The Gurkha would not have been charged with a crime unless there was compelling evidence showing that he chased down fleeing bandits with the intention of harming them (which I don't believe to be the case).
I see. Yeah, it seems we are making practically the same argument. Carry on then...
you have any idea what kind of space 10 bodies take? on a narrow train?
theres IS no way the bandits (or at least the last few) could have run towards the ghurka. A simple matter of space/volume shortage.
Wha? So there's room enough for him to run over the corpses he's made but not room enough for the bandits to do the same? And why are you assuming that the bandits all came from one direction? They fit 40 of 'em onto the train, right? So there had to be some sort of room.
I have to ask, have you ever been in a fight? You do understand that nobody just stands toe to toe and trades punches, I hope. There's movement. Especially when you're talking about people trying to stab each other. You try to get out of the way of the pain maker that's trying to get you and the other guy tried to get out of the way of the pain maker you're trying to get him with. Jeebus.
The reason the narrow train was said to have given the Ghurka the advantage against 40 men is because he didn't have to face all 40 of them at the same time. This does not in any way imply that he had to take them one on one, stack their corpses like wood and maintain his position. Were it three bandits, then the train would have given no real advantage.
And I don't know why I'm bothering. Meh.
Ah, but here you're baslessly assuming and generelizing that the bandits all are rapists.
As explained - For all we know we're talking about 39 poor husbands trying to feed their family, with no other resort then to turn to robbery; and 1 guy who takes it too far.
Why does this matter? These potentially poor husbands decided to use violence against people in the same situation to put those people in an even worse position to elevate themselves. Oh, and to do nothing when one of their group decided to **** a girl, either.
Thus, to correct your conclusion - as far as we know, it might have been (used italic & strikeout to edit)
"Nope, he had to go chasing after these poor, timid souls that were just trying to rob and **** a few people to better their horrible inhumane situation in life, and hung out with the wrong guy.
To assume all the bandits were rapists, is like assuming that everyone that likes a sport is a hooligan. - its judging a group of people by their worst example.
And to assume the Ghurka ran after these men in order to murder them is judging him based on the worst imaginable reason. Pot, meet kettle. I think you'll get along famously.
I should be done but I just can't help but voice my disgust at your constant interjection of these bandits' state. I don't care if they were poor and in an inhumane situation. The people on the train may well have been in exactly the same shape. They didn't, though, decide to attack people that share their plight in order to raise themselves up by doing those people harm. There's no excuse for this. None. No societal reason, no economic reason, nothing. We should not take pity on them. Not even a little. Because no matter how deplorable their situation may be, there are plenty of others in the same situation that don't resort to theft and **** (and I don't care that it was only one guy that started the **** situation - for all we know he would have been joined soon enough. what? I can play the 'worst possible outcome' game, too ;)). Those are the people that we should take pity on - not some thieving scumbags who don't care who they hurt so long as they come out ahead.
And to assume the Ghurka ran after these men in order to murder them is judging him based on the worst imaginable reason. Pot, meet kettle. I think you'll get along famously.
but that's the ENTIRE point.
I admit my assumptions are baseless. I admit I don't know what happened. How guilty or innocent the 39 bandits were. But people on this thread judge the bandits by their worst representative. They equate the with the worst member of the group. So why is it wrong if I instead assume the worst of the Ghurka. It's a less popular view of course, but equally baseless, and thus equally wrong.
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story, because these people equated them with rapists ...
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story.
... and Goldo is the one living in a fantasy world?
but that's the ENTIRE point.
I admit my assumptions are baseless. I admit I don't know what happened. How guilty or innocent the 39 bandits were. But people on this thread judge the bandits by their worst representative. They equate the with the worst member of the group. So why is it wrong if I instead assume the worst of the Ghurka. It's a less popular view of course, but equally baseless, and thus equally wrong.
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story, because these people equated them with rapists ...
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story.
... and Goldo is the one living in a fantasy world?
We know exactly how guilty the 39 bandits were - very. They attacked a train and relieved the passengers of their belongings. That puts them squarely in the wrong. All of them can be judged based on this fact. That one or more members may or may not have been worse than the majority does nothing to absolve the rest of what they've already done.
A **** was stopped. If you can't feel good about that, I just don't know what to tell you. Is it bad that people had to die to prevent this ****? Sure. But, in the end, the bad guys got the knife and the girl was protected. Sometimes good isn't pretty. This is one of those times. We can go on and on about how awful these poor bandits had it and how it's society that's the problem and that that's where we should look for a solution and, though we may well be right in doing so, none of that would have saved these people from being robbed and none of that would have saved that girl from her fate. Let's look at this in the proper context - as in, it's happening as we speak (relatively speaking) and not 20 years down the road. There is something good here. It may not have been the best possible thing to happen but it was the best possible thing to happen at that place at that time. That's what's important and, I believe, what most are looking at when they term it a feel good story. A man saved a girl from ****. The basic element. That's good.
And to assume the Ghurka ran after these men in order to murder them is judging him based on the worst imaginable reason. Pot, meet kettle. I think you'll get along famously.
but that's the ENTIRE point.
I admit my assumptions are baseless. I admit I don't know what happened. How guilty or innocent the 39 bandits were. But people on this thread judge the bandits by their worst representative. They equate the with the worst member of the group. So why is it wrong if I instead assume the worst of the Ghurka. It's a less popular view of course, but equally baseless, and thus equally wrong.
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story, because these people equated them with rapists ...
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story.
... and Goldo is the one living in a fantasy world?
You keep making the same baseless assumption that it was only one bandit trying to **** the girl. There were 40 bandits. The articles states that "...but then the 18 year old girl sitting next to him was grabbed by the robbers, who wanted to **** her. " Robbers, as in more than one. It wasn't 39 good guys trying to feed families and one guy who just happen to be a rapist. It was several of them who grabbed her. How many is not known. What is known is that it was robbers, as in plural, as in more than one.
A **** was stopped. If you can't feel good about that, I just don't know what to tell you.
Im sorry that Im ot easely satisfied. IMO the end does not justify the means.
For a price of 3 human lives, a **** was stopped. No, that does not make me feel good.
We know exactly how guilty the 39 bandits were - very.
of atempted robery.
we dont know about **** or even if they attaked the Ghunta.
Unless you know something we dont?
You keep making the same baseless assumption that it was only one bandit trying to **** the girl.
yes. granted, the artikel speaks of plural, but
techically, Im making the baseless assumption that at least 1 or more of the wouned/killed bandits didn't. I m also stating the fact we dont know howmany rapists were hurt (maybe all those got away, and only non-rapist bandits were killed/wounded)
conclusion? unchanged.
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story, because these people equated them with rapists ...
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story, because these people equated them with rapists ...
No, it's a feel good story because these were bandits. Funny thing is you value the girl's life less than the bandits. Yes, three of them died. One girl was spared the horror of being raped. Guess it just depends on who you value more: those who commit crimes for reasons you don't know, or those who are victimized by criminals.
Funny thing is you value the girl's life less than the bandits.
i fail to see the joke.
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story, because these people equated them with rapists ...
No, it's a feel good story because these were bandits.
oh, i though i had to do with the **** being prevented...
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story, because these people equated them with rapists ...
No, it's a feel good story because these were bandits.
oh, i though i had to do with the **** being prevented...
That's part of it. There are more things in this story to be glad about than just one. You seem to have tunnel vision, only able to focus on one thing at a time. This would explain why all you see is the "tragedy" of a few bandits/rapists dying as such a bad thing.
I'm sure the girl in the article is glad they are dead. The other passengers may be as well. It would explain why the Gurkha is being praised by people in India. But hey, if you want, light a candle for a few dead criminals if it makes you feel better.
HS, this isn't tunnel vision necessarily. It's selective vision; he's purposefully seeing the entire story, but he only focuses on this one thing (the deaths of the robbers/rapists) and harps on how horrible their economic system is, so as to give himself a feeling of moral superiority.
This is kinda like goldy claiming that there is no morality (not believing in good or evil), but then claiming moral high ground when he defends the robbers/rapists. He really is a piece of work. So is Qube.
No, when people say stupid things, they are stupid.
Well the reader still needs to make an effort to understand.
I do not believe that good/evil exist has actual forces in the universe. The yare abstract. Chimp live their lives according to their needs, without such abstract. Our brains give us the capacity to think and feel and we understand that some things can be done when it comes to interacting with other people.
As for what transpired in that train, the news, the actual reporting of the event, is no different then "kitten get stuck in tree". What should be reported is the why such events happened in India and what can be done to prevent such events from happening in the first place. You should like this, cause this is where I go semi-conspirationnist (semi cause I do not think this is done consciously or with nefarious intent), but this sort of news report is a distraction. It makes people think that all is right because some guy with a knife can save the day instead of questionning the established order of things. And it is not a question of being able to carry or not weapons, those are ultimately far less important things then actual wealth resdistribution.
All good points; however, this should not take away from the fact that these bandits chose to get on a train and rob the occupants and attempt to **** an 18 year old girl. Yes, it is horrible that there are people that are in such dire straights that they have to resort to crime in order to survive and help feed their families. This may be the case in this article. It may also not be case. We do not know that these 40 men all had families that they needed to feed. We do not know if these bandits just wanted to rob people of their possessions. What we do know is that they committed a crime and attempted another and were thwarted by one man with a Kukri.
Also, how important wealth redistribution is falls within the spectrum of good/bad, right/wrong. You may think it is good/right to help other less fortunate people. Somebody else may think it is bad/wrong to take money away from them to give to someone else who they believe has not earned it. The goodness or evilness of such actions are determined by these abstract concepts. In the end, it all depends on how you see it. You can disagree with others, but you shouldn't ridicule others for interpreting it differently.
Rule 34 of the internet deals with porn. Learn the rules hippie!
Porn is rule 0, jefe.
(did I cross a line?)
Learn the rules noob
Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to present the 40 men as victims. I am just trying to say that the real story is elsewhere.
I would disagree. There is more to the story than just 40 bandits get curb-stomped by one Kukri packing Gurkha, but it is still an important part of the story.
But my positions are ridiculed. How many times has someone said "typical left-wing propaganda based on ignorance" or been called a communist or a socialist. I have no reason to be better. Now I am all for debates, but this is the internet. It is not about reasonnale rational debates.
You're so Emo.
Not really. Some dude used a knife on robbers and rapist. /turns page and yawns a bit
Not if you consider that this lone man came from the same society that supposedly produced these bandits. Somehow he was able to resist society and its inequalities changing him into a bandit.
You were the one saying I must consider the others as sensitive emos. I am just saying I'll do it when internet changes.
"you're the one that blah blah blah." Hey! If I wanted to hear someone cry, I would go punch a toddler in the face.
Part of your problem is that you do not accept the truth that good and evil exist; you think that humans are no more than animals "just doing their thing." That is just so plainly wrong when you study history, which you apparently refuse to do; history is filled with records of the evils of mankind, as well as the good things that men and women do.
Just as I told Qube, why don't you go to India, find the family of that girl who was almost raped, and tell them that the robbers were "just doing their thing." See how far that gets you.
Your comments has nothing to do with what I am saying. I do not consider that Indian society is a corrupting influence and that no one who grows their can be "good". What I am saying is this sort of story is just a smoke screen, a diversion, for better questions.
Better is debatable. It is an abstract concept. Better depends on what criteria you have for something being good and something being better. As you have said, there is no such thing as good and evil. Those are abstract concepts. By the same token, there is no such thing as good or better. It is an abstract concept that relies on the definition of another abstract concept. The question is just a question.
People rejoice thinking that justice can be found in anecdotale acts, but true justice, the one that can be more then anecdotale, is something else.
Justice is another abstract concept. There is no difference between justice and true justice. They are the same abstract concept that depends on your individual interpretation. It is pointless to speak about it.
So your just avoiding sensible conversations. Typical interwebz atitude.
You were the one that said this was the internet. It is not about reasonable and rational debates.
Now I am all for debates, but this is the internet. It is not about reasonnale rational debates.
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story, because these people equated them with rapists ...
No, it's a feel good story because these were bandits.
oh, i though i had to do with the **** being prevented...
That's part of it. There are more things in this story to be glad about than just one. You seem to have tunnel vision, only able to focus on one thing at a time.
I'dd say the opposite. I read the article, and (obvious) read about a **** being prevented and a failed robbery, and heroics of one man; but I also see the opposite of the coin.
If anyone has tunnel vision, its the people saying that I should only focus on the good.
But hey, if you want, light a candle for a few dead criminals if it makes you feel better.
I don't light candles for heros, why would I light candles for criminals.
This is kinda like goldy claiming that there is no morality (not believing in good or evil), but then claiming moral high ground when he defends the robbers/rapists. He really is a piece of work. So is Qube.
I believe that people make choices, to the best of their abilities. And that they make mistakes.
And even if there is such a thing as good/evil ... why do you assume the rapist is evil, and not something who made a (terrible wrong) decision? you know, good people aren't flawless ...
Rule 34 of the internet deals with porn. Learn the rules hippie!
desu!
Just as I told Qube, why don't you go to India, find the family of that girl who was almost raped, and tell them that the robbers were "just doing their thing." See how far that gets you.
only if you go to the carton box, where a widow and children who live in inhumane poverty; where the husband had no other way to provide for his family, then to turn to banditism. And explain to them why he had to died, why they probbably won't have food to last an other month, simply because some other guy decided to **** someone.
(all baseless assumptions, of course)
But seriously. What you're doing is increasing the moral value of one person (the girl) over an other (the dead bandits)*.
*: just like a pet has a higher value then the beef you ate yesterday. (people won't kill their own pet for food, but have no trouble killing other creatures) (and no I'm not a vegitarian. I like my steak
)I don't know either of the parties. I don't know their situation. I don't know much about what happened there. So for me, the values of the individuals are about the same. From that point of view, I make the following assesment: 3 lives / 8 wounded vs 1 lifelong trauma.
For me, the moral equation is
DecreasedBecauseOfCriminals(3 lives / 8 wounded) > IncreasedByVictimisation(1 lifelong trauma)
The same goes for Qube.
The more I chat with you, goldy, the more it reminds be of something Jesus said. The saying includes the word pearls and the word swine.
The same goes for Qube.
wait ... are you defending that its not that bad that 3 men were killed and YOU bring up Jesus?
Seriously, do you think Jesus would catalog the incident as "Feel good story"?
And do you mean Matthew 7:6?
1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Me? I'm hoping that when I make a mistake, people will forgive me instead (or give an applicable punishment) instead of killing me. I'm simply following Matthew 7:1-2 with that - giving the same judgement to others.
---------------------------
Also, it reminds me of what homicidal_squirrel wrote: "But hey, if you want, light a candle for a few dead criminals if it makes you feel better." ...
Matthew 5:44 Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
The more I chat with you, goldy, the more it reminds be of something Jesus said. The saying includes the word pearls and the word swine.
The same goes for Qube.
wait ... are you defending that its not that bad that 3 men were killed and YOU bring up Jesus?
Seriously, do you think Jesus would catalog the incident as "Feel good story"?
And do you mean Matthew 7:6?1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Me? I'm hoping that when I make a mistake, people will forgive me instead (or give an applicable punishment) instead of killing me. I'm simply following Matthew 7:1-2 with that - giving the same judgement to others.
---------------------------
Also, it reminds me of what homicidal_squirrel wrote: "But hey, if you want, light a candle for a few dead criminals if it makes you feel better." ...
Matthew 5:44 Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Purely, completely, end-of-thread owned.
The more I chat with you, goldy, the more it reminds be of something Jesus said. The saying includes the word pearls and the word swine.
The same goes for Qube.
wait ... are you defending that its not that bad that 3 men were killed and YOU bring up Jesus?
Seriously, do you think Jesus would catalog the incident as "Feel good story"?
And do you mean Matthew 7:6?1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Me? I'm hoping that when I make a mistake, people will forgive me instead (or give an applicable punishment) instead of killing me. I'm simply following Matthew 7:1-2 with that - giving the same judgement to others.
---------------------------
Also, it reminds me of what homicidal_squirrel wrote: "But hey, if you want, light a candle for a few dead criminals if it makes you feel better." ...
Matthew 5:44 Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Those three men were robbers and rapists. The article made that clear.
It certainly is a shame that those men had to be killed, but to save that girl's honor and her life, it was an absolute necessity. You cry and make excuses for those thieves and their evil. They didn't "make a mistake"; they performed an evil deed (robbery...how were those people who were robbed supposed to pay their bills without their money? pick it off the fricking money tree?), and they tried to compound it with another evil (****, something that you don't believe is a big deal; why don't you talk to someone who has been raped and see the anguish in their eyes?).
Finally, you disparage me and my religion (yes, God is a God of mercy, but he is also a God of justice), and have the audacity to quote Scripture to me. Unbelievable.
Do I wish that situation had gone down differently? I'd prefer that the robbers hadn't commited their crime, or at least that they had not tried to **** the girl. But if the exact same situation happened, I'd hope that the same results would occur: bad guys killed/driven off, girl's honor and life preserved, robery victims have their belongings returned.
You and goldy seem to be psychopaths; you are unable to put yourselves in the place of those who had been robbed; you cannot imagine the horror of sexual assault that the girl almost endured. Again, unbelievable.
For me, the moral equation is
DecreasedBecauseOfCriminals(3 lives / 8 wounded) > IncreasedByVictimisation(1 lifelong trauma)
You forget the trauma of all the other passengers who were held at gun, knife, and sword point. The robbery may have been stopped, but the passengers were still victimized.
Finally, you disparage me and my religion (yes, God is a God of mercy, but he is also a God of justice), and have the audacity to quote Scripture to me. Unbelievable.
Yes, because it's audacious and atrocious to think that people actually bothered to read the Bible and the quotes that you throw around as arguments, rather then assume that because you mentioned a quote from the Bible, it instantly meant you were right. How dare they.
Me? I'm hoping that when I make a mistake, people will forgive me instead (or give an applicable punishment) instead of killing me.
1: **** is a choice, not a mistake.
2: Death by torture is a fitting punishment for ****.
Purely, completely, end-of-thread owned.
thank you. I thought so too. (Seriously, using Jesus quotes to justify killings ...)
You forget the trauma of all the other passengers who were held at gun, knife, and sword point. The robbery may have been stopped, but the passengers were still victimized.
no I didn't. they were traumatized before the killing started.
Now that I think of it, how 'bout the trauma of a kid, seeing someone get killed right in front of his eyes, (with a kukri non the less, seems quite bloody). All those kids on the train, scarred for life ...
You and goldy seem to be psychopaths; you are unable to put yourselves in the place of those who had been robbed; you cannot imagine the horror of sexual assault that the girl almost endured.
LOL. Almost my entire argument is based on "what about the starving family of the husband, forced into banditry?". Empathy is my middle name.
It certainly is a shame that those men had to be killed, but to save that girl's honor and her life, it was an absolute necessity.
absolute necessity? And why would a diplomacy check not work? Nor would non-lethal incapacitation?
You can't be sure of that.
Finally, you disparage me and my religion (yes, God is a God of mercy, but he is also a God of justice), and have the audacity to quote Scripture to me. Unbelievable.
Yes, I have the audacity to quote Scripture against you. I would even quote Scripture to the holy pope himself, if I thought he was wrong.
And you have failed to rebuttel (Execpt for calling me a psychopaths. very christian of you)
"Seriously, do you think Jesus would catalog the incident as "Feel good story"?"
Me? I'm hoping that when I make a mistake, people will forgive me instead (or give an applicable punishment) instead of killing me.
1: **** is a choice, not a mistake.
2: Death by torture is a fitting punishment for ****.
1: what about the any non-rapist bandits that were killed?
1': Making the wrong choice, that's the mistake - so resorting to baditism or even deciding to **** - all mistakes
2: Death by torture is against the geneva convention IIRC
no I didn't. they were traumatized before the killing started.
Now that I think of it, how 'bout the trauma of a kid, seeing someone get killed right in front of his eyes, (with a kukri non the less, seems quite bloody). All those kids on the train, scarred for life ...
Yes, a situation that could have been avoided if the bandits had not tried to **** the girl. The Gurkha was going to give up his stuff without a fight (it's in the article). The bloodshed was a direct consequence of the robbers grabbing the girl to **** her. Not only did the actions of the bandits cause people to be traumatized before the killing started, but their actions caused the Gurkha to have to defend the girl and kill men he had no intention of killing and traumatizing all those children (how many, if any at all, is unknown as it is not said in the article).
Was it tragic that such an event had to occur? Yes. Yet it the bandits could have made off with the loot and no one would have been hurt and no children would have been traumatized had one or more of the bandits not tried to **** a girl.
2: Death by torture is against the geneva convention IIRC
The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties and three additional protocols that set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. They have no bearing on the lawful or just punishment for ****.
Yes, a situation that could have been avoided if the bandits had not tried to **** the girl. The Gurkha was going to give up his stuff without a fight (it's in the article). The bloodshed was a direct consequence of the robbers grabbing the girl to **** her.
That's looking for who's blame. I don't care about that. (probbably end up blaming the gov )
Was it tragic that such an event had to occur? Yes.
my point exaclty. not a feel good story.
2: Death by torture is against the geneva convention IIRC
The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties and three additional protocols that set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. They have no bearing on the lawful or just punishment for ****.
not only the victims, but also the prisoners of war
Either way, I'm sure that there's some kind of convention out there saying that you shouldn't torture people to death ...
Yes, a situation that could have been avoided if the bandits had not tried to **** the girl. The Gurkha was going to give up his stuff without a fight (it's in the article). The bloodshed was a direct consequence of the robbers grabbing the girl to **** her.
That's looking for who's blame. I don't care about that. (probbably end up blaming the gov )
That's funny considering you continue to blame the economic situation or the government or whatever other entity except the bandits for the entire incident.
Was it tragic that such an event had to occur? Yes.
my point exaclty. not a feel good story.
Even in tragedies we can find some good. Thank you for trivializing the lives and gratitude of the train passengers and the almost raped girl. Very classy.
Im sorry that Im ot easely satisfied. IMO the end does not justify the means.
For a price of 3 human lives, a **** was stopped. No, that does not make me feel good.
Maybe you would if it was you they were trying to ****? Jesus, put yourself in her position. And the price? Well, that wasn't set by the Ghurka. It was set by those three humans that decided to involve themselves in a crime. They were on that train to do harm to other human beings (not necessarily physical, but harm nonetheless - especially if we're to believe the story that everyone is living a ****ty life and has nothing) and were harmed in the process. You bring some things on yourself, you know. In this case, they may not have fully understood what was going to happen to them as a result of their little attempt at bettering themselves through harming others, but that's just too damned bad.
What you seem to be missing is that this girl did nothing to warrant the theft and violence perpetrated against her and that these men most certainly did do something that warranted a violent response. They committed a crime. In the process, they were harmed. She boarded a train. As a result, she was robbed and nearly raped. One is quite different from the other. If these bandits had simply not boarded the train to rob it, they'd still be alive. If they'd only robbed the passengers and left the girl alone, they'd be alive. They did this to themselves.
of atempted robery.
we dont know about **** or even if they attaked the Ghunta.
Unless you know something we dont?
I never said they were all very guilty of attempted ****. They were all certainly guilty of attempted armed robbery. That is still a crime, you know, and quite a traumatic thing to go through. A violation as well. They weren't saints and their actions are what caused this event to happen. Had they not decided to harm others, they would not have found themselves being harmed by this person in this place at this time. They had all the choice in this matter. And they chose poorly.
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story, because these people equated them with rapists ...
Nope. It's a feel good story because a **** was thwarted and the only people hurt were the ones that brought it on themselves by deciding to harm others.
That's funny considering you continue to blame the economic situation or the government or whatever other entity except the bandits for the entire incident.
that's not quite correct: I'm saying that they are "baseless assumptions" and "as far as we know". It's a hypothetical situation - Which is not same as blaming someone/something specific.
I'm saying, as far as we know, there could be someone/something else to blame. Who or what that is exaclty (be it the gov, the social situation, ...) is irrelevant to the point. Hence, "That's looking for who's blame. I don't care about that."
Even in tragedies we can find some good.
Maybe, but a tragedy is viewed as mournful. it can't be both a tragedy and a feel good stroy
That's funny considering you continue to blame the economic situation or the government or whatever other entity except the bandits for the entire incident.
that's not quite correct: I'm saying that they are "baseless assumptions" and "as far as we know". It's a hypothetical situation - Which is not same as blaming someone/something specific.
I'm saying, as far as we know, there could be someone/something else to blame. Who or what that is exaclty (be it the gov, the social situation, ...) is irrelevant to the point. Hence, "That's looking for who's blame. I don't care about that."
Interesting. I thought we were discussing an actual event that is documented in the article and had several eye-witnesses. In any case, you are still looking for someone to blame, just not the bandits because they "tragically" died.
Even in tragedies we can find some good.
Maybe, but a tragedy is viewed as mournful. it can't be both a tragedy and a feel good stroy
You may want to read the wiki article you linked. I'll give you a quick quote from it that is very useful for this discussion:"Not all death is considered to be a tragedy. Rather it is a precise set of symptoms surrouding the loss that define it as such."
I take it back. The deaths of these bandits was not a tragedy but a triumph.
Also...thank you for trivializing the lives and gratitude of the train passengers and the almost raped girl. Very classy.
Nope. It's a feel good story because a **** was thwarted and the only people hurt were the ones that brought it on themselves by deciding to harm others.
(1) unless you equate robbing someone with deciding to do harm, that's a baseless assumption
(2) as deciding implies they had a viable choice (which is a baseless assumption)
(3) baseless assumption, you don't take into effect everyone that was hurt by the killings (trauma of children withnessing the onslaught; or indirectly, familymembers of the deceised bandit)
(4) Matthew 5:38-39
EDIT: what is this Matthew 5 thing? J.C. said some which sick stuff on that mount.
Interesting. I thought we were discussing an actual event that is documented in the article and had several eye-witnesses.
... and ... we're going in circles. In that document there are 4 scentences describing the event. 4. that's it. The rest is all speculation. For example, could you say if the guy(s) who were trying to **** her were actually hurt? The article doesn't say it. Yet, it is assumed that all that died were rapists.
And dead rapists are alright, because we're not empatic toward rapists.
But what if the people who died were people we could be empatic towards? Hence, the example of the poor husband who was forced into banditism.
Hmmm, an other example, I hope you can be empatic towards Robin Hood. What if the bandits who died were Robin Hoods ?
It's because I'm empatic with all victims of the incident - and not just with the potential **** victim - that I think its not a feel good story.
"Not all death is considered to be a tragedy. Rather it is a precise set of symptoms surrouding the loss that define it as such."
I take it back. The deaths of these bandits was not a tragedy but a triumph.
it indeed wasn't a tragedy ...
- the death toll is high, or if a single, unexpected death occurs in a well-beloved person
the persons killed are equated with rapists. Hardly beloved people - A death may be viewed as a tragedy when it is premature in nature
yes, but the persons killed are equated with rapists. rapists deserve to die - Publicity is a factor in making the public view of an event as a tragedy
the article is hardly written in favor of the bandits, as the article equates the killed people with rapists. - The resulting consequences from one or more deaths can be seen as a tragedy
nope - The long-term effects of an event can render it as tragic.
nope
and remeber what I said?
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story, because these people equated them with rapists ...
it indeed wasn't a tragedy ...
Also...thank you for trivializing the lives and gratitude of the train passengers and the almost raped girl. Very classy.
And thank you for trivializing the value of human life lives. Very classy.
EDIT: one more for iqwinn. You call me a psychopath? Matthew 5:21-22
- You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’
- But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
This Jesus character realy has some great stuff!
1) unless you equate robbing someone with deciding to do harm, that's a baseless assumption
Robbing someone does harm, yes. It takes their money and posessions they've worked for away from them. It puts fear into them (otherwise why would they comply). So yes, robbing someone is a decision made to do harm. Unless you can demonstrate armed robbery that does no harm, I have no reason to change my mind on this.
By the way, I explained in the quote you snipped that from how robbery does harm.
(2) as deciding implies they had a viable choice (which is a baseless assumption)
They had a viable choice - specifically the choice not to rob. If they were robbing to feed themselves so that they did not succumb to starvation, why target train passengers who had money and electronics rather than, you know, a place that has food. So, if the argument is that they had no choice but to harm others for their own survival, they sure as hell went about it the wrong way. And that, of course, would be a baseless assumption as well.
(3) baseless assumption, you don't take into effect everyone that was hurt by the killings (trauma of children withnessing the onslaught; or indirectly, familymembers of the deceised bandit)
No need. The reason I don't is because the people harmed by the deaths of the men have only the men that were killed to blame. They got on that train, they robbed those people and they (at least two) decided to try and **** a girl. They did all of that of their own volition and they, therefore, are who is to blame for any trauma caused by their deaths. The trauma would never have happened had they not decided to do harm to others and put themselves in that position.
(4) Matthew 5:38-39
EDIT: what is this Matthew 5 thing? J.C. said some which sick stuff on that mount.
I have no idea where this came from as I have not once gone to the Bible as some sort of argument.
...Robin Hoods ...
Just to be clear, Robin robbed from the rich to give to the poor, not robbed from the poor to give to himself. As it's been assumed here several times that everyone involved lives in a world of ****, I have to, then, assume the victims were poor as well.
... and ... we're going in circles. In that document there are 4 scentences describing the event. 4. that's it. The rest is all speculation. For example, could you say if the guy(s) who were trying to **** her were actually hurt? The article doesn't say it. Yet, it is assumed that all that died were rapists.
And dead rapists are alright, because we're not empatic toward rapists.
Actually, no, you are making assumpitions about what other people think. It is possible that not all of the men trying to **** her died. It is also possible that none of the men who tried to **** her died. All the men who died were bandits. In any case, why shopuld we be empathic to rapist? Is there a shortage of sex that needs to be met by society? should we start social programs where we redistribute the sex among those who can't get laid?
But what if the people who died were people we could be empatic towards? Hence, the example of the poor husband who was forced into banditism.
Hmmm, an other example, I hope you can be empatic towards Robin Hood. What if the bandits who died were Robin Hoods ?
I'm not an expert on the Robin Hood legends, but I don't recall ever hearing about Robin Hood and his merry men attempting to rob the poor and **** women along the way.
It's because I'm empatic with all victims of the incident - and not just with the potential **** victim - that I think its not a feel good story.
The train passengers were the victims of the bandits. The bandit were victims of circumstances. Too bad for the bandits. I feel more sympathy by those who are victimized by other people than by those who get themselves into a mess and suffer the consequences.
it indeed wasn't a tragedy ...
I agree.
- the death toll is high, or if a single, unexpected death occurs in a well-beloved person
the persons killed are equated with rapists. Hardly beloved people- A death may be viewed as a tragedy when it is premature in nature
yes, but the persons killed are equated with rapists. rapists deserve to die- Publicity is a factor in making the public view of an event as a tragedy
the article is hardly written in favor of the bandits, as the article equates the killed people with rapists.- The resulting consequences from one or more deaths can be seen as a tragedy
nope- The long-term effects of an event can render it as tragic.
nope
You keep harping on the whole "they are associated with rapists thing." Would you feel any better if they weren't associated with rapists? Would it even matter? They may or may not have been rapist; However, they were bandits.
I must say, you did a pretty good job os showing why this was not a tragic event. I would, however, make a few changes.
- the death toll is high, or if a single, unexpected death occurs in a well-beloved person
The persons killed were bandits. Victims of bandits usually do not love or care for the bandits. - A death may be viewed as a tragedy when it is premature in nature
Maybe. The age of the dead bandits is unknown. Also, it is assumed that a life of crime puts one into situations that may cut their lives short. Crminals dying young is nothing new. It may even be expected. - The resulting consequences from one or more deaths can be seen as a tragedy
No. The bandits put themselves in this situation and suffered the consequences of leading a life of crime. - The long-term effects of an event can render it as tragic.
No. The long term effect of the story is as of yet unknown. It is a recent story and we must wait to see what happens.
The funniest one you wrote was this:
Publicity is a factor in making the public view of an event as a tragedy
the article is hardly written in favor of the bandits, as the article equates the killed people with rapists.
The publicity factor has to do with the amount of media coverage and how far it spreads. Next time read the article you link to.
The truth is that the article does not equate the dead bandits with rapists. It mentions that some of them (number not specified) tried to **** an 18 year old girl. I am curious as how you would see this as being favorable in any way towards the bandits? "40 poor and starving men died today. They were working had trying to make a living in order to feed their families and starving children. A lone crazed-militant with a deadly weapon attacked them without cause, killing 3 men who were fathers, and injuring 8 others who are now unable to acquire the money needed to feed their families." Such a tragic thing.
and remeber what I said?
3 people were killed, and 8 were wounded ... but that's a feel good story, because these people equated them with rapists ...
Actually they were only bandits. They didn't get to **** the girl. At most the are equated with attempted rapists, or associates of people who attempt rapes.
And thank you for trivializing the value of human life lives. Very classy.
The value of human life is subjective. What makes one life more valueable than another? What makes one life equal to the life of another?
If you can feel so much sympathy for 3 dead bandits because of things that may have been, regarless of the actions taken by this group of bandits (which may or may not contain the ones who attempted to **** the girl), I can be sympathetic to the intended victims of the bandits, regarless of the resulting deaths of people who put themselves in a situation where they may be hurt.
Sure, ou claim to be sympathetic to all the victims, but you have done a very good job of defending the actions of these poor victimized bandits.
(2) as deciding implies they had a viable choice (which is a baseless assumption)
They had a viable choice - specifically the choice not to rob. If they were robbing to feed themselves so that they did not succumb to starvation, why target train passengers who had money and electronics rather than, you know, a place that has food.
that's not a base. That's assuming they otherwise would have robbed a food place.
For example, I would think robbing a train in the middle of a jungle (if you're somewhat used to the jungle), seems easier then robbing a food place that has enough food for 39 people. (which are in urban environments, which means police)
So, if the argument is that they had no choice but to harm others for their own survival, they sure as hell went about it the wrong way. And that, of course, would be a baseless assumption as well.
if incompetance was a excuse to kill someone ...
No need. The reason I don't is because the people harmed by the deaths of the men have only the men that were killed to blame.
again in circles. That's baseless: We don't know the entire situation, thus we can't even begin to persume who is actually it fault. Heck, you know anti-U.S. people; before you know it, they drag in the harsh economic sanctions the U.S. imposed on India in 1998. And that's a can of wurms I'dd rather keep very tightly closed.
I have no idea where this came from as I have not once gone to the Bible as some sort of argument.
preëmptive strike
Just to be clear, Robin robbed from the rich to give to the poor, not robbed from the poor to give to himself. As it's been assumed here several times that everyone involved lives in a world of ****, I have to, then, assume the victims were poor as well.
true, but you can empatise with robin hood, right? Which was the point.
- Robin Hood did bad stuff for the good reasons ----> we empatisewith him ---> it would be bad if the sherif of Nothinghim killed Robin Hood.
- people we know very little of, robbed people ---> which is bad ---> we can't empatisewith them ---> its not bad if they got killed.
And suddenly, The lives of certain people (of who we know very little), are diminished in value.
Heck, as get associated with a rapist, suddenly it's really not that big of deal they get sliced to bits.
... And the reader forgets that, actually, these are people we know very little off.
We judged & juried them because of 4 sentences. And we feel good about it.
Actually, no, you are making assumpitions about what other people think.
- It is possible that not all of the men trying to **** her died.
- It is also possible that none of the men who tried to **** her died.
- All the men who died were bandits.
In any case, why shopuld we be empathic to rapist?
depends on your moral code.
- for atheïsts I say, "I never claimed you have to be emphatic to a rapist"
- for christians I say "because JC says so"
You keep harping on the whole "they are associated with rapists thing." Would you feel any better if they weren't associated with rapists? Would it even matter? They may or may not have been rapist; However, they were bandits.
and so was Robin Hood. We don't know anything of these men, except that they at one point decided to result to banditry (heck, we even don't know that. Social pressume and such ...).
Why?
Was it justified?
You speak of "a life of crime". did they have that or was this a single event?
Sure, you claim to be sympathetic to all the victims, but you have done a very good job of defending the actions of these poor victimized bandits.
I don't think I complained that the Ghunta defended the girl (only the way how he did it). And I don't blame him for using what he knows best for dong so
In the end, it sadens me most, not that people had to irriversable actions to resolve the situation, but that the incident is labelled "a feel good story"
depends on your moral code.
- for atheïsts I say, "I never claimed you have to be emphatic to a rapist"
- for christians I say "because JC says so"
Seeing as I have not brought up religion or a lack or religion, you should keep your religious views or religious bashing out of this conversation we (you and I) are having. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
and so was Robin Hood. We don't know anything of these men, except that they at one point decided to result to banditry (heck, we even don't know that. Social pressume and such ...).
Why?
Was it justified?
You speak of "a life of crime". did they have that or was this a single event?
Where did I say a life of crime? You are being disingenuous. That doesn't help your argument. Robin Hood was a bandit, but I wonder, how did the people of his time actually feel about him? What was it that he actually did? The legend we have of him and his men has been distorted by time and people. Sure, now he seems like a great guy. He took from the evil rich rulers and enslavers and gave to the poor and starving people. The truth could have been that he was a jerk that took from any he crossed and gave to his men, who happen to be poor. We can look at modern day Robin Hood type figures. Pablo Escobar, the Colombian drug dealer that became so famous was a Robin hood type character. He gave money to the poor in his city. he built schools and churches. Helped people find jobs (usually legal jobs), gave large monetary presents for people in his city who were poor and had just gotten married, and even paid some some wedding. However, he also killed anyone he thought betrayed him. He killed men, women and children by setting off bombs in cities. Killed honest politicians who were against drug trafficking. Why did he do all the "good" thing? because the poor people in the community protected him by letting him know when anything was happening that would stop him from dealing drugs. Was it a tragedy that he too a bullet to the head on a roof-top?
Sure, you claim to be sympathetic to all the victims, but you have done a very good job of defending the actions of these poor victimized bandits.
I don't think I complained that the Ghunta defended the girl (only the way how he did it). And I don't blame him for using what he knows best for dong so
So how would you have had him defend this girl? The truth is these men were criminals. It doesn't matter how long they were criminals for. That could have been their very first criminal act. They are criminals because they got on a train, took out guns, knives, and swords and robbed the passengers of the train. You could ignore the fact that one or more of them tried to **** a girl. The fact remains that they were committing a criminal act.
In the end, it sadens me most, not that people had to irriversable actions to resolve the situation, but that the incident is labelled "a feel good story"
So what you are saying is that you more sadden by the fact that some people can look at this story and agree with the train passengers and the other people in India who see the Gurkha as a hero because he killed a few bandit more than you are saddened that any of the bandits actually died.
Interesting...
that's not a base. That's assuming they otherwise would have robbed a food place.
For example, I would think robbing a train in the middle of a jungle (if you're somewhat used to the jungle), seems easier then robbing a food place that has enough food for 39 people. (which are in urban environments, which means police)
No matter what, they always had the option not to rob. That option is always there.
if incompetance was a excuse to kill someone ...
By 'the wrong way' I meant stealing money when you're hungry instead of stealing food. And it really doesn't matter as they always had the option to not harm others.
again in circles. That's baseless: We don't know the entire situation, thus we can't even begin to persume who is actually it fault. Heck, you know anti-U.S. people; before you know it, they drag in the harsh economic sanctions the U.S. imposed on India in 1998. And that's a can of wurms I'dd rather keep very tightly closed.
Incorrect. We know that not a one of these bandits would have been killed had they not gotten on that train to rob it. If they were not there, they would not have been killed. No matter what root you're digging for, it ultimately and always comes down to the will of the individual. Unless, of course, you're arguing that no one is ever responsible for their own actions. I certainly hope that's not the case. For whatever reasons they decided to perform this action, they still decided to perform said action. The gov't didn't force them to, society didn't push them onto the train, US sanctions didn't make them bring knives, etc. They did it. To purposefully ignore that is plain silly. And dangerous.
In your quest to find some greater bad to blame, you've forgotten just how important individual choice is. Don't shift blame from the men that instigated this situation.
preëmptive strike
I see.
To be clear, you needn't worry about me going to scripture to make my case. true, but you can empatise with robin hood, right? Which was the point.
- Robin Hood did bad stuff for the good reasons ----> we empatisewith him ---> it would be bad if the sherif of Nothinghim killed Robin Hood.
- people we know very little of, robbed people ---> which is bad ---> we can't empatisewith them ---> its not bad if they got killed.
And suddenly, The lives of certain people (of who we know very little), are diminished in value.
Heck, as get associated with a rapist, suddenly it's really not that big of deal they get sliced to bits.
... And the reader forgets that, actually, these are people we know very little off.
We judged & juried them because of 4 sentences. And we feel good about it.
It's not that hard to empathise with a man who put himself at risk taking money back from the men that took it from the poor. It's a lot harder to empathise with men who put others at risk in order to benefit themselves and decided to add **** to the equation. Robin didn't do the **** thing. People you'd term 'good' don't do the **** thing. In other words, this obviously was more than just trying to get a li'l scratch for some eggs. You don't need to **** someone to eat.
We know Robin robbed the rich who made their money off the backs of the poor and continued to take more and more from the poor. We know Robin didn't keep the cash or fence the iPods. We know he gave it back to the people it was unjustly taken from.
We know the bandits robbed a train full of people in order to get money for something. We don't know what. We know that the people on the train weren't government representatives holding the money they took from the poor bandits to give to the king. We know they were common people and not a privileged group abusing power to exploit the bandits. We know at least two of the bandits decided that money wasn't enough and that they were going to need some sex, too.
There is a marked difference between the two, no? And that difference is seen without resorting to guessing, either. It's seen from the facts we have if, you know, you want to focus on what's there instead of digging for some deeper societal cause.
How many times has someone said "typical left-wing propaganda based on ignorance" or been called a communist or a socialist. I have no reason to be better. Now I am all for debates, but this is the internet. It is not about reasonnale rational debates.
I'd have more sympathy for your plight, except that you choose to respond to such things rather then respond to the people that make logical, thought-out arguments with supporting evidence.
So yeah. Your choice. If you wanted you could choose to ignore people that just sling out "communist" or "socialist" like it's a trump card and only engage the people that are worth engaging, but you don't.
So, seeing as you choose your plight, I have no sympathy for it.
Part of your problem is that you do not accept the truth that good and evil exist; you think that humans are no more than animals "just doing their thing." That is just so plainly wrong when you study history, which you apparently refuse to do; history is filled with records of the evils of mankind, as well as the good things that men and women do.
... looking through human history you find plenty of evidence of people doing all sorts of things. That doesn't mean that good and evil are anymore "real" then any other philosophy or world-view.
NO. That is not ok. Theft is bad enough, but to add **** is just.....too much. While life is sacred (for the most part) I think that a person who is willing to do that needs a quick end. The soldier did the only thing he could do; and it was the best for the situation. With a bunch of thieves/rapists running off with the loot and that poor girl, ARMED, there isn't any time to go and be polite with them.
But at the same time, this isn't a feel good story.
But at the same time, this isn't a feel good story.
I disagree.
It made me feel very good.
You're missing my point. The very fact that the entire incident occurred keeps it from being a feel good story.
You're missing my point. The very fact that the entire incident occurred keeps it from being a feel good story.
Only if you are certain this incident could never have happened if some thing had been done.
You're missing my point. The very fact that the entire incident occurred keeps it from being a feel good story.
Only if you are certain this incident could never have happened if some thing had been done.
Whether it could have been prevented or not has nothing to do with it. Yes, the soldier did the right thing for the situation, and I don't regret the fact that he killed those robbers, but this story doesn't make me feel good. This story displays humanity at a new low. Theft from the common working person who has almost nothing, and THEN a desire for **** as well? Yes, it's a good thing that they were stopped. But the fact that there are still people with this mentality disturbs me. THAT is my point. I think that we as humans should all be better than that.
Whether it could have been prevented or not has nothing to do with it. Yes, the soldier did the right thing for the situation, and I don't regret the fact that he killed those robbers, but this story doesn't make me feel good. This story displays humanity at a new low. Theft from the common working person who has almost nothing, and THEN a desire for **** as well? Yes, it's a good thing that they were stopped. But the fact that there are still people with this mentality disturbs me. THAT is my point. I think that we as humans should all be better than that.
I see. Well then... good point. Still I can see why some would feel good about this story.
Purely, completely, end-of-thread owned.
thank you. I thought so too. (Seriously, using Jesus quotes to justify killings ...)You forget the trauma of all the other passengers who were held at gun, knife, and sword point. The robbery may have been stopped, but the passengers were still victimized.
no I didn't. they were traumatized before the killing started.
Now that I think of it, how 'bout the trauma of a kid, seeing someone get killed right in front of his eyes, (with a kukri non the less, seems quite bloody). All those kids on the train, scarred for life ...You and goldy seem to be psychopaths; you are unable to put yourselves in the place of those who had been robbed; you cannot imagine the horror of sexual assault that the girl almost endured.
LOL. Almost my entire argument is based on "what about the starving family of the husband, forced into banditry?". Empathy is my middle name.It certainly is a shame that those men had to be killed, but to save that girl's honor and her life, it was an absolute necessity.
absolute necessity? And why would a diplomacy check not work? Nor would non-lethal incapacitation?
You can't be sure of that.Finally, you disparage me and my religion (yes, God is a God of mercy, but he is also a God of justice), and have the audacity to quote Scripture to me. Unbelievable.
Yes, I have the audacity to quote Scripture against you. I would even quote Scripture to the holy pope himself, if I thought he was wrong.
And you have failed to rebuttel (Execpt for calling me a psychopaths. very christian of you)
"Seriously, do you think Jesus would catalog the incident as "Feel good story"?"
Show me where I've said that Jesus would approve of that. I never have. He would not have approved, nor would He have approved of what the bandits did.
Jesus boiled down the law of God into three statements: 1) Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; 2) Love your neighbor as yourself; 3) Do for others as you would have them do for you. These bandits did none of those things. They are the antithesis of what Jesus said.
A diplomacy check?!?! Try it next time someone has a knife at your throat, or a gun to your head, or is dropping his pants so he can **** someone in front of you, or maybe even **** you.
As for empathy, I have yet to see your say anything empathetic towards the girl who was almost raped, nor to the passengers whose lives were threatened.
Quoting Scripture to the Pope? Go right ahead, he's got nothing on me. Then again, as Shakespeare said, The devil can cite Scripture to his purpose (The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene III).
The Ghurka did what had to be done to save the life and honor of that girl.
Prove to me that the bandits were doing what they did to feed their families.
Look ma, Bane actually made a rational statement!
Nah, I do need reason to be better here.
Then I'm afraid, Mojo_Joe, that you'll only be confirming people's claims of you.
Instead, I chose to downsize my life, where I rented a room in a house, worked at a minimum wage job, and treaded water financially for the rest of my life. But then, I met the woman who became my wife and (long story short) both of our lives were much improved. We live in a comfortable home, with vehicles that run reliably, and have decent-paying jobs.
This is the point: I could have taken the path to crime, but I CHOSE not to. If I had, I seriously doubt that you and I would be having this polite conversation.
You're missing my point. The very fact that the entire incident occurred keeps it from being a feel good story.
Only if you are certain this incident could never have happened if some thing had been done.
Whether it could have been prevented or not has nothing to do with it. Yes, the soldier did the right thing for the situation, and I don't regret the fact that he killed those robbers, but this story doesn't make me feel good. This story displays humanity at a new low. Theft from the common working person who has almost nothing, and THEN a desire for **** as well? Yes, it's a good thing that they were stopped. But the fact that there are still people with this mentality disturbs me. THAT is my point. I think that we as humans should all be better than that.
This is hardly new, nor is it even particularly low.
Look ma, Bane actually made a rational statement!
HEY! Quiet you....wait. I remember you. The drunkard. The one who robbed me at the one legged stallion. I ain't never playing dice with you again. Or cards.
You're missing my point. The very fact that the entire incident occurred keeps it from being a feel good story.
Only if you are certain this incident could never have happened if some thing had been done.
Whether it could have been prevented or not has nothing to do with it. Yes, the soldier did the right thing for the situation, and I don't regret the fact that he killed those robbers, but this story doesn't make me feel good. This story displays humanity at a new low. Theft from the common working person who has almost nothing, and THEN a desire for **** as well? Yes, it's a good thing that they were stopped. But the fact that there are still people with this mentality disturbs me. THAT is my point. I think that we as humans should all be better than that.
This is hardly new, nor is it even particularly low.
The way I see it, I hope for the best from people, since I have seen it a lot over this past year. THis may not be new, so that was a misphrasing on my part, but that's my general take on it. It just shows how shallow and ignorant and selfish people can be.
Goldo is no more, he got perma banned.
Nah, I do need reason to be better here.
That is amazing. I just noticed that Goldomark, Goldomarked, Goldomartys, and Goldovictim are all "unavailable any longer."Are all those permanent?
Well, Mojo_Joe, if Goldo really needs a reason to be better, then perhaps he shouldn't look for one. After all, being better, like being good and kind and so-on, are admirable traits on their own, no outside coercion needed or desired. That is to say, if one needs reason to better themselves, then perhaps they aren't worth it.
Goldo is no more, he got perma banned.
Nah, I do need reason to be better here.
And yet you continue to come back, eh goldy?
Do not bother trying to deny that it is you. It is kind of funny how you not only happen to know that goldo was perma banned but that you also have the same join date as one of his alts (GoldoVictim). Each one of those unto themselves is not out of the oridnary, but when you add them together they paint a pretty clear picture.
PS The not-so-subtle "kiss my ass" avatar is just a bit too much of a give away.
As for calling you and Qube psychopaths, your refusal to empathize with the victims of the robbers, as well as the girl who was almost raped, confirms what I say.
Nah, I do need reason to be better here.
Then I'm afraid, Mojo_Joe, that you'll only be confirming people's claims of you.
I stopped carring a few weeks ago. People here and in places like 4e General, call you troll when you do not share the same idea as them and just report you for their own personnal vendetta. So the ycan call me how they like and I'll act the way I want.
Sucks about the Goldos. I'm still going to refer to you as Goldo or Goldy. So what happened a few weeks ago that made you stop caring?
By the DSM IV (2000), antisocial personality disorder's essential feature is "a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. [...] Deceit and manipulation are central features of Antisocial Personality Disorder [...]"
The diagnostic critera is:
A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occuring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
- Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
- Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
- Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
- Irritability and aggressiveness, as inicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
- Reckless disregard for safety of self or others
- Consistent irresponsibilty, as indicated by repeated fialure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
- Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onsent before age 15 years
D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic episode.
So no. Based on the DSM and our knowledge of Mojo_Joe or Qube's histories or behaviors, a label of psychopath hardly seems fair.
Jerk? Certainly. Arguably callous? Perhaps lacking empathy? Arguably. But psychopath? We lack enough support for that claim.
After thinking about it, I think a more accurate term for their attitude would be "depraved indifference", as they have little to any concern for the welfare of the girl, much less the welfare of the passengers on the train who were robbed.
However, I would not be surprised if their depraved indifference were a symptom of being a psychopath (my opinion only).
And it is my opinion that their depraved indifference is a symptom of their politics.
But hey!
That's just one mans opinion... what do I know?
If you want to get into a pissing match over who's politics is more callous and indifferent to suffering I'm pretty sure I have enough ammo from Reagen's administration alone to at least earn a stalemate.
So unless that's your desire, I think I'll leave it with "at best (worst?) it's their own depraved indifference through the lens of politics".
Though I wouldn't actually say "depraved indfifference", at least in respect to Goldo (I wasn't paying as much attention to Qube, to be honest). While he refused to come out and say it (because he was fearing a word trap), his concern seemed to be that the article was focusing on symptoms of a larger problem and that while yes it's good to treat symptoms, if you don't address the actual disease you're just celebrating treatment, not a cure, if that makes sense?
So I would say that he was, perhaps, insisting on seeing the forest at the expense of seeing the trees, which isn't so much an example of indifference as it is losing a touch of humanity in the effort to be more humane.
I understand that some of my taxes are used for infrastructure, roads and bridges and the like. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is my money being used to finance things that are either personally or morally objectionable to me, such as what pases for art (one such performance was a young woman who doused herself in chocolate sauce then licked it off; while that's entertainment for some, it's something that needs to stand on it's own merits, NOT at the expense of the taxpayers).
I also object to my money being used to finance deadbeats, specifically people who receive public assistance. I used to work as an eligibility worker of AFDC recipients, and I saw the whole spectrum of people recieving AFDC. Some were in genuine need and had no other alternative, but most were simply layabouts who just took the money with no more concern than they would smoking a cigarette. There were some that worked the system, women who became pregnant almost like clockwork to as to increase their benefits. Harsh, but true, from my own real-world experience.
Lastly, I seriously object to Social Security. It is, in truth, the biggest ponzi scheme of all, and the moment that the money going out exceeds the money coming in, it will collapse, and the violation of the law of economics will result in the law of the jungle.
Look ma, Bane actually made a rational statement!
Nah, I do need reason to be better here.
Then I'm afraid, Mojo_Joe, that you'll only be confirming people's claims of you.
Instead, I chose to downsize my life, where I rented a room in a house, worked at a minimum wage job, and treaded water financially for the rest of my life. But then, I met the woman who became my wife and (long story short) both of our lives were much improved. We live in a comfortable home, with vehicles that run reliably, and have decent-paying jobs.
This is the point: I could have taken the path to crime, but I CHOSE not to. If I had, I seriously doubt that you and I would be having this polite conversation.
You're missing my point. The very fact that the entire incident occurred keeps it from being a feel good story.
Only if you are certain this incident could never have happened if some thing had been done.
Whether it could have been prevented or not has nothing to do with it. Yes, the soldier did the right thing for the situation, and I don't regret the fact that he killed those robbers, but this story doesn't make me feel good. This story displays humanity at a new low. Theft from the common working person who has almost nothing, and THEN a desire for **** as well? Yes, it's a good thing that they were stopped. But the fact that there are still people with this mentality disturbs me. THAT is my point. I think that we as humans should all be better than that.
This is hardly new, nor is it even particularly low.
Look ma, Bane actually made a rational statement!
HEY! Quiet you....wait. I remember you. The drunkard. The one who robbed me at the one legged stallion. I ain't never playing dice with you again. Or cards.
You're missing my point. The very fact that the entire incident occurred keeps it from being a feel good story.
Only if you are certain this incident could never have happened if some thing had been done.
Whether it could have been prevented or not has nothing to do with it. Yes, the soldier did the right thing for the situation, and I don't regret the fact that he killed those robbers, but this story doesn't make me feel good. This story displays humanity at a new low. Theft from the common working person who has almost nothing, and THEN a desire for **** as well? Yes, it's a good thing that they were stopped. But the fact that there are still people with this mentality disturbs me. THAT is my point. I think that we as humans should all be better than that.
This is hardly new, nor is it even particularly low.
The way I see it, I hope for the best from people, since I have seen it a lot over this past year. THis may not be new, so that was a misphrasing on my part, but that's my general take on it. It just shows how shallow and ignorant and selfish people can be.
Goldo is no more, he got perma banned.
Nah, I do need reason to be better here.
That is amazing. I just noticed that Goldomark, Goldomarked, Goldomartys, and Goldovictim are all "unavailable any longer."Are all those permanent?
Well, Mojo_Joe, if Goldo really needs a reason to be better, then perhaps he shouldn't look for one. After all, being better, like being good and kind and so-on, are admirable traits on their own, no outside coercion needed or desired. That is to say, if one needs reason to better themselves, then perhaps they aren't worth it.
Goldo is no more, he got perma banned.
Nah, I do need reason to be better here.
And yet you continue to come back, eh goldy?
Do not bother trying to deny that it is you. It is kind of funny how you not only happen to know that goldo was perma banned but that you also have the same join date as one of his alts (GoldoVictim). Each one of those unto themselves is not out of the oridnary, but when you add them together they paint a pretty clear picture.
PS The not-so-subtle "kiss my ass" avatar is just a bit too much of a give away.
As for calling you and Qube psychopaths, your refusal to empathize with the victims of the robbers, as well as the girl who was almost raped, confirms what I say.
Nah, I do need reason to be better here.
Then I'm afraid, Mojo_Joe, that you'll only be confirming people's claims of you.
I stopped carring a few weeks ago. People here and in places like 4e General, call you troll when you do not share the same idea as them and just report you for their own personnal vendetta. So the ycan call me how they like and I'll act the way I want.
Sucks about the Goldos. I'm still going to refer to you as Goldo or Goldy. So what happened a few weeks ago that made you stop caring?
By the DSM IV (2000), antisocial personality disorder's essential feature is "a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. [...] Deceit and manipulation are central features of Antisocial Personality Disorder [...]"
The diagnostic critera is:
A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occuring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
- Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
- Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
- Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
- Irritability and aggressiveness, as inicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
- Reckless disregard for safety of self or others
- Consistent irresponsibilty, as indicated by repeated fialure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
- Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onsent before age 15 years
D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic episode.
So no. Based on the DSM and our knowledge of Mojo_Joe or Qube's histories or behaviors, a label of psychopath hardly seems fair.
Jerk? Certainly. Arguably callous? Perhaps lacking empathy? Arguably. But psychopath? We lack enough support for that claim.
After thinking about it, I think a more accurate term for their attitude would be "depraved indifference", as they have little to any concern for the welfare of the girl, much less the welfare of the passengers on the train who were robbed.
However, I would not be surprised if their depraved indifference were a symptom of being a psychopath (my opinion only).
And it is my opinion that their depraved indifference is a symptom of their politics.
But hey!
That's just one mans opinion... what do I know?
If you want to get into a pissing match over who's politics is more callous and indifferent to suffering I'm pretty sure I have enough ammo from Reagen's administration alone to at least earn a stalemate.
So unless that's your desire, I think I'll leave it with "at best (worst?) it's their own depraved indifference through the lens of politics".
Though I wouldn't actually say "depraved indfifference", at least in respect to Goldo (I wasn't paying as much attention to Qube, to be honest). While he refused to come out and say it (because he was fearing a word trap), his concern seemed to be that the article was focusing on symptoms of a larger problem and that while yes it's good to treat symptoms, if you don't address the actual disease you're just celebrating treatment, not a cure, if that makes sense?
So I would say that he was, perhaps, insisting on seeing the forest at the expense of seeing the trees, which isn't so much an example of indifference as it is losing a touch of humanity in the effort to be more humane.
I understand that some of my taxes are used for infrastructure, roads and bridges and the like. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is my money being used to finance things that are either personally or morally objectionable to me, such as what pases for art (one such performance was a young woman who doused herself in chocolate sauce then licked it off; while that's entertainment for some, it's something that needs to stand on it's own merits, NOT at the expense of the taxpayers).
I also object to my money being used to finance deadbeats, specifically people who receive public assistance. I used to work as an eligibility worker of AFDC recipients, and I saw the whole spectrum of people recieving AFDC. Some were in genuine need and had no other alternative, but most were simply layabouts who just took the money with no more concern than they would smoking a cigarette. There were some that worked the system, women who became pregnant almost like clockwork to as to increase their benefits. Harsh, but true, from my own real-world experience.
Lastly, I seriously object to Social Security. It is, in truth, the biggest ponzi scheme of all, and the moment that the money going out exceeds the money coming in, it will collapse, and the violation of the law of economics will result in the law of the jungle.