|
On August 31 2011 14:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 13:00 sevencck wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have been reading over these forums now for some time, though I never bothered to sign up to post anything here. As a website for Starcraft enthusiasts it absolutely gets top marks, but I could never get past the reputation these forums have.
This will be my first post, and it wouldn't terribly surprise me if I discover that it's my last. I thought these forums were populated by intelligent people because of the nature of the often thought provoking content in the news that is posted and discussed here on a daily basis. I have to wonder though; I am utterly baffled at the overwhelming response either validating this reprehensible act, applauding the marksmanship, or making light of the situation. Firing a crossbow at a child from a car (moving or otherwise) for any reason is the height of callous negligent irresponsibility. What do you really know about the child? What if the child bled to death? What if the bolt missed and killed someone enjoying a morning stroll? Is this really the way we have been bred to respond to this type of behavior? Is it normal to suggest this is karma? What does it say about us when we look upon this as justice served or find it funny in any way?
DoctorHelvetica and Chargelot, I am thankful for people like you. I am vicariously ashamed. This forum isn't what it was. 
Thanks.
Keep up the good work man.
|
Hahaha I just laughed for about a minute, thank you for this thread.
On topic, that must have sucked for the rock thrower.
|
On August 31 2011 14:46 Doppelganger wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 14:37 101toss wrote:On August 31 2011 14:36 FragKrag wrote:On August 31 2011 14:35 Vei wrote:On August 31 2011 11:29 Flameling wrote:On August 31 2011 11:28 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On one hand, I was kind of amused Pretty much sums it up for me lol. User was temp banned for this post. I don't understand why this was bannable o_O because kwark doesn't believe this is funny I don't understand why that is bannable Because the use of deadly force is not funny and should not be encouraged like that.
On August 31 2011 14:40 Tippereth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 14:39 Caloooomi wrote:
Made me giggle as it's such a surreal response to the act. Saying that, if it were a gun it would be a completely different story - don't understand how there were no arrests though. Well, that's the point, isn't it? Nobody's laughing at the act of violence, they're laughing at the absurdity of it being a crossbow.
This pretty sums up my opinion of the general theme of peoples' reactions in this thread. Believe it or not, this forum isn't populated by a bunch of immoral assholes who take pleasure in other peoples' suffering. The funny part is, as quoted, the absurdity of it being a crossbow of all things, and the concept of someone carrying a crossbow around for self defense as apposed to something more conventional. No one laughed at the fact that a kid was injured, and little to no one would've sided with the shooter had it not been for the fact that he was using a crossbow.
|
Someone's been practicing his vampire hunting...
|
Vigilante justice is wrong, crossbow or rock.
And honestly if I had to choose between the two wrongs, I would rather be neighbors to a kid who throws rocks at cars then be a neighbor to an adult who shoots kids with a crossbow.
Get some perspective people.
|
Hey, that kid's doing something stupid and dangerous.
Guess I ought to murder him.
What a disgusting, depraved human being.
|
|
|
United States239 Posts
It's not like most of the people posting in this thread are laughing that a guy tried to murder a child. It's one of those things where you just hear something so absurd and ridiculous you laugh. The title is "Boy throws rocks at car and gets shot by crossbow" for goodness sake. It's hard for people in our age to think of a crossbow as a lethal weapon at first glance. It's more something that we've read about in history books.
As to my reaction to the article: Both parties are in the wrong, the child endangered peoples lives by throwing rocks. The real catch is that the crossbowman (see it's ridiculous just to have to say that) shot his crossbow with the intent to harm the child. That is not okay. That is not "justice". The kid obviously needed to be taught a lesson by his parents/police, but not like that. A crossbow can be a lethal weapon, just as much as any gun can. You don't "teach a kid a lesson" by shooting him with a crossbow, plain and simple.
|
On August 31 2011 14:58 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 14:35 Vei wrote:On August 31 2011 11:29 Flameling wrote:On August 31 2011 11:28 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On one hand, I was kind of amused Pretty much sums it up for me lol. User was temp banned for this post. I don't understand why this was bannable o_O When a mod sees a thread like this, there is bound to be collateral banage. It's understandable when you consider that so many people were inconsiderate about a boy being shot with a deadly weapon. I'm sure that if a gun was used in this situation, there would not be people saying it was funny. It seems like people are disregarding the fact that crossbows were used as weapons of warfare for hundreds of years. I don't think very many people would be laughing if the guy ran out of the car and disemboweled the kid with a sword.
Rocks have probably been used as weapons for hundreds of thousands of years.
And the reason people laugh at something like this is NOT because they think the harming children is funny. The reason it is funny is because it is, in fact, NOT funny and the thought of somebody finding it hilarious/rational is so absurd and inappropriate that it actually invokes laughter. The real inconsiderate people are the ones who don't understand this.
|
On August 31 2011 15:06 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Hey, that kid's doing something stupid and dangerous.
Guess I ought to murder him.
What a disgusting, depraved human being.
That's typical road rage. You don't think of killing the person, you just think "what a fucking idiot, what's the nearest thing I can use against him?" It's like how some guy followed a family home, only to spray some kid with pepper spray. There's not much thought involved in what they do, it's more just spur of the moment
|
Wait, how does this kid deserve having a crazy person try to kill them?
On August 31 2011 15:11 101toss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 15:06 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Hey, that kid's doing something stupid and dangerous.
Guess I ought to murder him.
What a disgusting, depraved human being. That's typical road rage. You don't think of killing the person, you just think "what a fucking idiot, what's the nearest thing I can use against him?" It's like how some guy followed a family home, only to spray some kid with pepper spray. There's not much thought involved in what they do, it's more just spur of the moment
Any and all thought processes that lead to attempting to murder the child in this situation are disgusting.
|
I don't know if he deserved a crossbow bolt to the chest, especially because even the best marksmen can miss their target once in a while. That kid deserved to get the shit kicked out of him and his parents should be liable for any damages he caused though.
It doesn't matter if the particular situation he was throwing rocks in was life threatening, if he learned that it's ok to do there or doesn't have harsh enough repercussions then next thing you know he's dropping rocks on cars from an overpass and a few people wind up dead. Then everyone rushes to the kids defense and goes, "Rehabilitation is the only way! You must make sure that he gets a T.V. and personal fridge in his cell too!"
On August 31 2011 15:11 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, how does this kid deserve having a crazy person try to kill them?
Defending yourself or your property isn't crazy, he may have gone overboard but I wouldn't call the guy crazy.
|
United States43681 Posts
On August 31 2011 15:10 gobertech wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 14:58 Fontong wrote:On August 31 2011 14:35 Vei wrote:On August 31 2011 11:29 Flameling wrote:On August 31 2011 11:28 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On one hand, I was kind of amused Pretty much sums it up for me lol. User was temp banned for this post. I don't understand why this was bannable o_O When a mod sees a thread like this, there is bound to be collateral banage. It's understandable when you consider that so many people were inconsiderate about a boy being shot with a deadly weapon. I'm sure that if a gun was used in this situation, there would not be people saying it was funny. It seems like people are disregarding the fact that crossbows were used as weapons of warfare for hundreds of years. I don't think very many people would be laughing if the guy ran out of the car and disemboweled the kid with a sword. Rocks have probably been used as weapons for hundreds of thousands of years. And the reason people laugh at something like this is NOT because they think the harming children is funny. The reason it is funny is because it is, in fact, NOT funny and the thought of somebody finding it hilarious/rational is so absurd and inappropriate that it actually invokes laughter. The real inconsiderate people are the ones who don't understand this.
On August 31 2011 12:42 itachisan wrote:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLLL
that's right, im sorry but that kid got what he deserved, that'll teach him to manner up and not be a little faggot.
User was banned for this post.
I disagree. There was some real trash in this topic.
|
So many clueless, self-righteously moral whiteknights in this thread. If you can't understand that the reason this is amusing is because of the absurdity of it being a crossbow, fired from a moving car, and not the fact that some kid who was trying to hurt innocent people on a highway by throwing rocks at their moving vehicles was hurt, then you are retarded. And by the way, if you're traveling at highway speed, and a large rock hits your windshield, it's extremely dangerous. The violence isn't funny, it being a crossbow is. If it was a bow and arrow, it would be even funnier.
|
On August 31 2011 15:12 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 15:11 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, how does this kid deserve having a crazy person try to kill them? Defending yourself or your property isn't crazy, he may have gone overboard but I wouldn't call the guy crazy.
Ah yes, I need to defend myself from this small child. Let me use this here weapon that was designed to kill people wearing armor to "defend," myself.
|
On August 31 2011 15:14 Fission wrote:
So many clueless, self-righteously moral whiteknights in this thread. If you can't understand that the reason this is amusing is because of the absurdity of it being a crossbow, fired from a moving car, and not the fact that some kid who was trying to kill innocent people on a highway by throwing rocks at their moving vehicles was hurt, then you are retarded. And by the way, if you're traveling at highway speed, and a large rock hits your windshield, it's extremely dangerous. The violence isn't funny, it being a crossbow is. If it was a bow and arrow, it would be even funnier.
The problem is the people in this thread -- and there are plenty -- going "The kid deserved what he got!" and applauding the man's decision to attempt to murder a child. Stop trying to rationalize it. Laughing at a guy using a crossbow for anything because you're disconnected from the situation is okay. Rooting for this kind of thing to happen is not.
PS: he wasn't travelling at highway speed, read the article.
|
Throw rocks at cars gets crossbowed.
Saying above was funny gets temp banned.
Some overreacting going on in both scenarios.
|
On August 31 2011 15:03 Xevious wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 14:46 Doppelganger wrote:On August 31 2011 14:37 101toss wrote:On August 31 2011 14:36 FragKrag wrote:On August 31 2011 14:35 Vei wrote:On August 31 2011 11:29 Flameling wrote:On August 31 2011 11:28 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On one hand, I was kind of amused Pretty much sums it up for me lol. User was temp banned for this post. I don't understand why this was bannable o_O because kwark doesn't believe this is funny I don't understand why that is bannable Because the use of deadly force is not funny and should not be encouraged like that. Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 14:40 Tippereth wrote:On August 31 2011 14:39 Caloooomi wrote:
Made me giggle as it's such a surreal response to the act. Saying that, if it were a gun it would be a completely different story - don't understand how there were no arrests though. Well, that's the point, isn't it? Nobody's laughing at the act of violence, they're laughing at the absurdity of it being a crossbow. This pretty sums up my opinion of the general theme of peoples' reactions in this thread. Believe it or not, this forum isn't populated by a bunch of immoral assholes who take pleasure in other peoples' suffering. The funny part is, as quoted, the absurdity of it being a crossbow of all things, and the concept of someone carrying a crossbow around for self defense as apposed to something more conventional. No one laughed at the fact that a kid was injured, and little to no one would've sided with the shooter had it not been for the fact that he was using a crossbow. How does a crossbow change the morality of siding with the shooter? What if he had a sword? A machete? A switchblade? A pistol? What if he had gotten out of his car and strangled the child with a rubber chicken?
There were plenty of people in this thread saying things like "The kid got what was coming to him", or that he "deserved" it. The absurdity of the weapon, or humour that you find therein, doesn't change the fact that the shooter assaulted a minor with a deadly weapon. Siding with the shooter has nothing to do with what weapon he used, as he still meant to cause grievous harm and possibly death to the child.
There were plenty of people laughing that the kid was injured, and arguing that it was right and commendable that he was injured, and that the shooter should be lauded for his efforts. His choice of weapon doesn't change his actions, and doesn't change what people represent when they side with the shooter and commend him.
(I'm also not commenting on the people who find the situation absurd, or funny. I don't really care about them. I'm talking about the people I was arguing with, who in fact did applaud the efforts of the shooter, whose actions remain the same, regardless of weapon)
|
On August 31 2011 15:16 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 15:14 Fission wrote:
So many clueless, self-righteously moral whiteknights in this thread. If you can't understand that the reason this is amusing is because of the absurdity of it being a crossbow, fired from a moving car, and not the fact that some kid who was trying to kill innocent people on a highway by throwing rocks at their moving vehicles was hurt, then you are retarded. And by the way, if you're traveling at highway speed, and a large rock hits your windshield, it's extremely dangerous. The violence isn't funny, it being a crossbow is. If it was a bow and arrow, it would be even funnier. The problem is the people in this thread -- and there are plenty -- going "The kid deserved what he got!" and applauding the man's decision to attempt to murder a child. Stop trying to rationalize it. PS: he wasn't travelling at highway speed, read the article.
Rationalize what? The fact that I find it funny? I don't need to rationalize that - I simply find it so.
|
On August 31 2011 15:15 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 15:12 HereticSaint wrote:On August 31 2011 15:11 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, how does this kid deserve having a crazy person try to kill them? Defending yourself or your property isn't crazy, he may have gone overboard but I wouldn't call the guy crazy. Ah yes, I need to defend myself from this small child. Let me use this here weapon that was designed to kill people wearing armor to "defend," myself.
The response from "people like you" would be exactly the same if he went and beat the shit out of the kid. You're wrong and yes, if there was a kid who was constantly throwing rocks at my car and the parents weren't making serious progress to stop it and paying for any and all repairs to my car including potential time lost from work and having to deal with that bullshit I would beat the snot out of the kid.
Also, a child with a gun is still a person with a gun just like a child with a rock is still a person with a rock. Maybe he shouldn't be using weapons, or would it have been better if I started chucking rocks back at his head?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
