[Harper switches on the video feed, and he's kinda got that twitchy, 'I'm furious, but I'm reigning it in' look about him. He smiles, and claps his hands together
( Read more... )
That doesn't really help your case, mate. And this is speaking as someone who was seriously considering killing the git if given half a chance, up until I realised he just wanted the attention. They kill him, you kill them, someone else kills you... just ends up being a bloody mess.
And what about all those people on board who didn't have your epiphany about him just wanting attention? I'm supposed to just stand back and hope that no one else goes after him?
How about this for wardening: They get to choose. They step back and let us do our jobs? Then those are the rules we stick to and no one gets hurt. They go out to get revenge themselves? Then we work by those rules, and everybody bleeds for it.
Not really. First of all, I'll be getting there before you've got a chance to do the actual murder, second, I'm not killing you, third, do you have a problem with it?
Anyway, I never said I was against violence to discourage violence. Just that your plan wouldn't work.
Jeeze, how ineptly do you people think I'm going to be committing these murders? It's not like there's a time limit, I can just wait until you're busy with something else and then do it.
So if you're not against violence to discourage violence, then what's your problem with murder to discourage murder? And okay, here's my big question: If you're happy to beat the crap out of someone for committing murder, then how about we cut out the middle man, and you beat anyone who murders Rex to within an inch of their lives? You do that? And I won't kill them. Seems like a fair compromise to me.
If I'm around when anyone's murdering anyone, I'd generally stop them, and that usually involves me hitting people. Thought I'd give you a head's up.
Guess the difference is, I only do it when there's an actual reason for it. Once they're down, they're down, and they can be... put in Zero or whatever.
I see punishment and deterrent as a reason. I guess you didn't notice that putting them 'in Zero or whatever' hasn't done much to actually protect anyone.
Reply
Reply
Reply
How about this for wardening: They get to choose. They step back and let us do our jobs? Then those are the rules we stick to and no one gets hurt. They go out to get revenge themselves? Then we work by those rules, and everybody bleeds for it.
Reply
Reply
Now that is hypocrisy at it's finest.
Reply
Anyway, I never said I was against violence to discourage violence. Just that your plan wouldn't work.
Reply
So if you're not against violence to discourage violence, then what's your problem with murder to discourage murder? And okay, here's my big question: If you're happy to beat the crap out of someone for committing murder, then how about we cut out the middle man, and you beat anyone who murders Rex to within an inch of their lives? You do that? And I won't kill them. Seems like a fair compromise to me.
Reply
Guess the difference is, I only do it when there's an actual reason for it. Once they're down, they're down, and they can be... put in Zero or whatever.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
So wait. If someone kills Rex, that sets off two more murders automatically?
This isn't a deterrent, gentlemen, it's an incentive plan.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment