Nobody deserves to die over a car, stolen or not.

 

car theives = pieces of ****, period!


"deserve" is a strong word...whether or not we sympathize for him I believe is the topic.

I for one, do not

 

I wish I found this thread earlier I believe he made the choices so he deserved to die wether or not he could have been any value to society we will never know is it sad sure but he did what he did and payed the price and as far as 96dx goes, running into a bank waving a gun in peoples faces you should expect to die just because you havent pulled the trigger yet does'nt mean you wont pull it, sometimes things need to be ended before something worse happens.

 

I pretty sure if someone tried to sell me a car without a key for the ignition I would know that it was stolen. Unless they made a loosey Honda key that works on old ignitions. This has to be the guy who stole it or a friend of his.

Oh, and my 2 cents... ...No mercy. I shall quote the 'great' Sensei from Karate Kid, "We do not train to be merciful here. Mercy is for the weak. Here, in the streets, in competition. A man confronts you, he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy. What is the problem, Mr. Lawrence?"

 

Below I comment on some recent posts in this thread. Just to clarify, nobody is under obligation to respond. Ignore if you wish or point both barrels at me and fire.

Science. Everyone should learn to write, not just English majors.

How could you possibly know this to be true in this specific case? In addition, Darwinism operates at the population level not at the individual level. If the survival of a species depended on any one individual, then there would be selection for clones rather than variation within species. This would certainly be a recipe for extinction of the entire species.

Seems reasonable, if your facts are correct.

Well, he definitely could avoid being picked on by simply following the flock of sheep. Do we need more sheep?

A refreshing voice of reason.

Safe, measured, and non-controversial.

I guess you would be speculating about what choices he made without knowing all the facts. For example, I could speculate that he may have been distraught and committed suicide, and Punisher was unlucky in that his car was used as the suicide weapon.

This seems to be an out-of-left field attack. How does this fit with the topic at hand? Or is he just an easy target for you?

Maybe or maybe not. But nice theory.

Seriously, you make life and death decisions based on what you learned in a Hollywood movie?

 

Yes! That is the ONLY way I know what to do. If it's not in a movie, I don't have an opinion on it... ...Or I was just attempting to make a joke in the first place. I'll never tell

 

Thanks for clearing that up Dan.

 

I guess I should be more specific. I am referring to natural selection. He made bad decisions. People who make too many bad decisions, especially the ones he made, survive less often than the ones who make intelligent decisions. I am inferring that the thief was not very intelligent, based on his dumb actions.



Well, a couple things...
This is sort of irrelevant because i'm not talking about going with what the group says, i'm just saying he always sides with the criminal. I should use the word "usually" though instead of "always". That's what I really mean... that he usually sides with the criminal. And if you look at past threads, you will find to be a true statement.
The other thing would be that by always (or usually, I should say) siding with the criminal, he is following a flock of sheep... the bad sheep.

 

I think you assume too much. The point is that the whole natural selection/Darwinism analogy is inappropriate here. "Good" versus "bad" is a societal definition and not necessarily a measure of species fitness. Natural selection couldn't care less whether it selects for "good" or "bad" individuals. If you could be reborn 10,000 years from now and learn about what our decendants evolved into, you might incorrectly conclude that natural selection selects for "bad" people. It simply selects for the most fit under the circumstances, whether that be "good" or "bad". In addition, you seem to believe that the thief was culled by Darwin because he carried "bad" genes. But as I said earlier, natural selection is a fickle, inefficient, and cruel process that neither spares all fit individuals nor destroys all unfit ones. So in this single case or any other one, we can't know whether we have lost something good or destroyed something bad in our human gene pool.

I personally find minority viewpoints more interesting than I do the consensus thinking here.

Today's bad might be tomorrow's good.

 

RonJ = HCF's Philosopher King