What did you buy in the past 3 months so far?

[vurt]

depends who they kill.

Nah. It is about how many:

“If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics.”

Joseph Stalin


“One murder makes a villain, millions a hero. Numbers sanctify”

Charlie Chaplin when playing Henri Verdoux.

what about if i know someone is a serial killer, lets say with 37 bodies already to their tally, with no sign of stopping. insatiable for the blood
wed say they are a bad person yeah?

now, what if, to stop them from getting 38 bodies...
i decapitate them with a shovel.
am i as evil as them?

seems a bit harsh, given my good intentions.

(also, do i get there score, is it like conkers?)

[rob_lee]

now, what if, to stop them from getting 38 bodies...
i decapitate them with a shovel.
am i as evil as them?

No lol you'd be known as vurt the good samaritan haha

[whyterabbyt]

I don't believe in that popular idea that everything is relative.
Is someone who kills one or two persons a relatively good person just because someone else is a genocidal mass murderer?

You don't think its worse to commit mass murder or genocide than kill one or two people?

From the perspective of the killer: If the person killed one or two people for reasons that qualify the killing as a first-degree murder, then I think the person is simply a bad person, a pariah for the rest of their life. Whether someone else killed 1000 people for such reasons, doesn't make a difference to me. He is also a bad person.

In this country the maximum sentence is 25 years for first-degree murder, no matter whether someone murdered 1 or 1000 people. The sentence does not accumulate so to speak.

you seem to be avoiding answering my actual question. im not asking about the killer's perspective, or sentence they'd get or if they were both 'bad' or not. i asked if you would disagree that one was worse. its a simple yes/no.

[rob_lee]

its a simple yes/no.

Drum roll

[fluffy_little_something]

depends who they kill.

Nah. It is about how many:

“If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics.”

Joseph Stalin


“One murder makes a villain, millions a hero. Numbers sanctify”

Charlie Chaplin when playing Henri Verdoux.

what about if i know someone is a serial killer, lets say with 37 bodies already to their tally, with no sign of stopping. insatiable for the blood
wed say they are a bad person yeah?

now, what if, to stop them from getting 38 bodies...
i decapitate them with a shovel.
am i as evil as them?

seems a bit harsh, given my good intentions.

(also, do i get there score, is it like conkers?)

I don't know about British or American law, but in Portuguese they have the term 'legitimate defense', which if necessary allows killing someone if that person is about to kill someone else. It goes beyond self-defense in that it also includes protecting others, not just oneself.

[EnGee]

depends who they kill.

Nah. It is about how many:

“If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics.”

Joseph Stalin


“One murder makes a villain, millions a hero. Numbers sanctify”

Charlie Chaplin when playing Henri Verdoux.

what about if i know someone is a serial killer, lets say with 37 bodies already to their tally, with no sign of stopping. insatiable for the blood
wed say they are a bad person yeah?

now, what if, to stop them from getting 38 bodies...
i decapitate them with a shovel.
am i as evil as them?

seems a bit harsh, given my good intentions.

(also, do i get there score, is it like conkers?)

I would feel much happier if I kill 2 like Putin and Trump and would be extremely happy if I kill other 10 assholes like those

So, it's like synths, 10 great synths are better than 2

[fluffy_little_something]

I don't believe in that popular idea that everything is relative.
Is someone who kills one or two persons a relatively good person just because someone else is a genocidal mass murderer?

You don't think its worse to commit mass murder or genocide than kill one or two people?

From the perspective of the killer: If the person killed one or two people for reasons that qualify the killing as a first-degree murder, then I think the person is simply a bad person, a pariah for the rest of their life. Whether someone else killed 1000 people for such reasons, doesn't make a difference to me. He is also a bad person.

In this country the maximum sentence is 25 years for first-degree murder, no matter whether someone murdered 1 or 1000 people. The sentence does not accumulate so to speak.

you seem to be avoiding answering my actual question. im not asking about the killer's perspective, or sentence they'd get or if they were both 'bad' or not. i asked if you would disagree that one was worse. its a simple yes/no.

Things are not as simple as you seem to think. So no, I can't answer that question with a simple yes or no. It depends on whose perspective I am looking at. The killer, the victims, society...

[IncarnateX]

now, what if, to stop them from getting 38 bodies...
i decapitate them with a shovel.
am i as evil as them?

Old Testament: An Eye for an eye. You did the right thing.

New Testament: Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. You should have forgiven him instead and turned his soul towards God.

Stalin: Evil has nothing to do with it. I kill as long as it is necessary. You should do the same instead of messing around with amateurs.

[VariKusBrainZ]

I replaced my 10 year old underwear collection,
I forgot what its like for my balls to stay inside my briefs

[whyterabbyt]

Things are not as simple as you seem to think. So no, I can't answer that question with a simple yes or no. It depends on whose perspective I am looking at. The killer, the victims, society...

erm, i didnt claim things were simple; you did.

I don't believe in that popular idea that everything is relative.

you simplified everything down to absolutes.

[fluffy_little_something]

Things are not as simple as you seem to think. So no, I can't answer that question with a simple yes or no. It depends on whose perspective I am looking at. The killer, the victims, society...

erm, i didnt claim things were simple; you did.

I don't believe in that popular idea that everything is relative.

you simplified everything down to absolutes.

I did not claim things are simple. There simply are certain limits. Not everything can be considered normal or OK by comparing it to extremes. For instance, when I say a millionaire has too much wealth, some people say that there are billionaires and thus millionaires are not filthy rich. I don't agree.

[blueman]

Socks, and a couple of sweaters

[whyterabbyt]

I did not claim things are simple.

There simply are certain limits. Not everything can be considered normal or OK by comparing it to extremes. For instance, when I say a millionaire has too much wealth, some people say that there are billionaires and thus millionaires are not filthy rich. I don't agree.

That is a different thing entirely. You're conflating a relative judgement between two things with the normalising of one of them.

[IncarnateX]

Forgot the topic. Better make a bet on that too to fit in. Three months? Mid august then. Let’s see.

10 grams of Kashmir pr. month. 30 grams in all.
Train tickets the days I work at office
Survival kits: Food, toilet paper, gasolin for my car etc.
A vacation for me and my girls
Korg Karma
Korg M3
Radias expansion for M3
Beat Step Pro
Elektron Digitone

[fluffy_little_something]

I did not claim things are simple.

There simply are certain limits. Not everything can be considered normal or OK by comparing it to extremes. For instance, when I say a millionaire has too much wealth, some people say that there are billionaires and thus millionaires are not filthy rich. I don't agree.

That is a different thing entirely. You're conflating a relative judgement between two things with the normalising of one of them.

They are often two sides of the same coin.