Well, there's always something worse.

The Holocaust could have been justified if Jews slaughtered, say, 25 million Germans/Christians/whoever.

Hitler.

You misunderstood. Killing the dog in revenge is different than finding a dead dog and instead of saying "Your dog is dead, sorrys" you behead it as a joke.


Also, if this person did something horrible to warrent her dog being killed... what ever happened to calling the police? Revenge only gets you in trouble.

Well you said couldn't be justified by anything, so i felt the need to through out some outlandish scenarios in which it could be justified.

And Glyde, couldn't someone have decapitated a dead dog in a fit of rage similar to the fit of rage that would be required for someone to kill a dog?

That makes a lot less sense than my theory.

Also, you can't justify the killing of a pet. The pet did nothing to you, even if the person that owns it did.

And I still said it's not something I would do. I am still waiting for a realistic situation in which it would be justified. Your argument is almost along the lines of 'but what if 2+2=5?!'...not quite as impossible, but almost as outrageous. How about 'feeling the need' to attempt to justify the actions in this case?



And then packing it in a box with candy and a note? Riight.



So would the United States have been justified in eradicating the entire German population after the Holocaust?

I still think you possess a twisted set of morals.

That doesn't make anything "justified." Both are horrible.

He seems to think morality is a weighted scale...

Sorry if I don't think telling a fib and murdering someone is of the same severity like your precious Bible tells you to.

...but no one mentioned anything about the Bible...?

It's only the origin of this "sin is sin" bunk.

I mean, the nerve of someone to say "he must think morality is on a weighted scale!"

Well, OF COURSE I DO. WTF else would I think?!

I would think that you actually had a set of morals and common sense. Revenge shouldn't be taken on something that only indrectly affects the person you're trying to take revenge on, and that's if you even are going to take revenge on them in the first place.

Which is wrong. There are easier, safer, and overall better ways to solve a problem. Like was said earlier, with your logic the Allied forces / Jews should've enslaved the german public and execute them.

Your arguments are absolutely preposterous. How would killing one's animals equate to killing people? People are far above animals. Killing the innocent in retaliation cannot possibly ever be justified on any level. As I said before, the only thing reasonably close would be if this was in retaliation for a similar act. Even then, the most appropriate response (in this context) would be a direct, and illegal, attack upon her.

Now, I agree that in this or a hypothetical situation someone could do something so heinous to another person that a response like this would not be surprising but it does not justify the response.

To clarify things let me say this. Should John Doe kill my wife, daughter, son, dog, etc I believe the appropriately illegal response would be to kill John Doe, generally not his wife, daughter, son, dog. Of course the legally appropriate response would be to let the legal system adjudicate him.

The logic is thus:

Some ******* took away my loved ones, so I'm going to take away his loved ones. I don't want to go kill him directly. That would be letting him off too easily. I want to make him suffer in the same way I have suffered.

Another one of Echoman's famous headaches. Here, have some advil.

I don't think Advil is going to help me feel good after hearing someone admit that killing innocent people will make him feel better.

But I'll try.

See, now I understand why you, and people like, defend terrorists so much.

this thread is painful

I think Freelancer is very much eye for an eye here. What I wonder is how you can feel justified to harm those that are innocent and have not harmed you, but rather are only associated with the person that harmed you. What gives you the right to get revenge for a horrible act by committing another horrible act?

Just make sure nobody you know kills anybody Free knows...and you might be alright..

Teenage girls piss off a lot of people.

Freelancer pisses off a lot of people.

Freelancer = Teenage girl

therefore, teenage girl != innocent

I am now mailing Freelancer thousands of dead chipmunks.

Still waiting for Freelancer's answer to this one.

Killing innocent people is wrong. Someone kills my family, who is innocent, therefore it is wrong. To get back at him, I kill his family, who is innocent, therefore it is wrong.

His family is entirely separate from his actions. How would killing them be justified? If killed, his family is essentially taking responsibility for his actions, which makes no god damn sense.

Dumbest statement I've seen in a long time.



Right on.

We do indirectly kill animals all the time for the purpose of eating better tasting food though, so I don't think freelancer is as radical as you all think.

Yes, but tasty food is widely accepted. Cutting off a domesticated pet's head and giving it to the owner as a gift is not as accepted :\

Heartwarming.

Now Free eats dogs?

You base your moral beliefs off of what is widely accepted then?

Wow, this is the first discussion for like --- 4 years in which it wasn't everyone wailing on a single person. Kudos to you, Zoj.

And Emon---it does make sense. I already explained the logic.

Never said that, it's just how the general public would take it. I eat tasty animals, but that's part of being an omnivore. I would never hunt for sport. Ever.

Last time I checked, dogs aren't on the menu.

How so? He defends those who would cut off the heads of the innocent. Islamic terrorists cut off heads all the time, presumably for reasons he would defend.

Well, it's wrong to kill unprovoked.

But how many of those "terrorists" have had family members killed by the American military?

you'd be surprised.

You are on to something...Freelancer is an islamic terrorist who thinks beheading people for any reason is justified.

Come on, everyone knows I'm areligious. How could I be Islamic? Give me some credit here.

Because it is a statement about an issue peripheral to this discussion designed only to incite conflict. And maybe I am ignorant about the whole thing, but I haven't heard anyone defending Islamic terrorists (who apparently "cut heads off all the time") around here.

So am I.

No, this discussion doesn't come around here very often but the act does in Iraq. It is often referred to as sectarian violence. God, those people disgust me.

Killing innocent people who are completely unrelated to your own suffering is justified?

No, it's not. That's sort of the point.

For that matter, it doesn't matter if they are innocent. They could murder your mother, and murdering them back would still be wrong. Now, if he gets shot by the police while resisting arrest, that's justice. Justice good, revenge bad. Simple, really.