If the heated argument was back-and-forth "I'm going to kick your ass.", then yeah we both would be at fault. The only purpose of such an argument is (1) preserving our ego, (2) increasing the chances of a fight breaking out between us. I would be ashamed that I put myself in such a position for no good reason, and if you attacked me as a result that doesn't make me any less shameful. Obviously that's not ok. I don't understand the logic in that. Also, I never said both were "equally" at fault. I don't even know what that means. Moral responsibility isn't a mathematical quantity.
It is strange to me how everyone seems to think that finding both guys at fault means I'm not finding the black guy at fault.
They is an obvious causal link between the stupid, juvenile trash talking both willingly took part in, and the first punch being thrown. That I acknowledge this is astounding to you?
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Landlord Landry made all of the stuff he posted, and I don't think posting material from other sources without giving credit to them makes someone funny. But, I could be wrong. Maybe he did make all of it...and if so, he sure was churning them out with a quickness.
No, man. I think we don't agree that it was a 50-50 percentage fault, either. I think it's more like this... using the SAN ANDREAS' FAULT LINE to illustrate FAULT:
It goes well beyond the images. The vast majority of his posts that crack me up contain just a few words, as is the case with moes. I think it's just his sense of humor. There are some exceptional photoshoppers out there that bring the comedy as well, yourself included. BugOnAHarley and a few others fit into this category. Your "DD dreaming of Wafer" is probably the best of the best.
This thread only made me wondering one question: Why is ****** censored on this board but Chinaman isn't? Actually, honky isn't censored either. I mean, we do know all of these are racial terms right regardless of the difference in severity you may think they are? Sup with double standard
What is the lesson here? If you told a child that the black guy was responsible for everything that happened after the old guy physically removed himself, aren't you telling him that there is nothing wrong with the inflammatory language? That its ok to turn your brain off and make verbal threats without considering the likely consequences, and you won't have any responsibility for what happens? I don't agree with that at all. I'm not saying that the punch was justified. But I can not agree with your position that what the old guy did after moving away was "the right thing". Him moving away was the right thing. His choice to engage the black guy in an argument over who can kick the other's ass was the wrong thing. And his choice to defend himself after being punched was understandable under the circumstance, but it should not have come to that.
I have a disconnect with everyone except durvasa in the case that there is a common benefit of the doubt given to the old man, that he sincerely wanted his shoes shined at that moment by that man. I don't think he did, I think it might have been racial and when he said it could be a "Chinaman" he was showing his cards as a racist. There's no way I can side with either of them
Sticks and stones May break my bones But words will never hurt me. It was not an argument about who can win. The Epic Beard Dude "No you don't have too" in reference to why does he have to shine shoes. "Why are you being so hostile man?" "No, I ain't getting up" "You are not scaring me" It was not an argument about who can win. The Epic Beard Dude then told him what will happen if the little guy became violent. "....then I will slap the #$%^ outta you" "
HOWEVER, you cannot determine precisely what is predictable. The physical altercation could have ended when the old man took the initiative to distance himself from the situation. Just because he refused to sit at the front of the bus and continue to be mocked and insulted does not instantly make the situation predictable.
Absolutely. Let me ask you this: Suppose you willingly provoke someone you know to be a psychopath because you don't want the people around you to think you're wimp. Suppose you happen to have a daughter who is standing next to you. Suppose this guy, in anger, takes a bat and swings it at your daughter, breaking her arm. He is then restrained and arrested. Would it be wrong for your wife, or your daughter for that matter, to be angry with you? Should they give you a pass because you didn't actually initiate a physical confrontation? Morally speaking, are you in the clear?
Who's to say he would continue to be mocked/insulted if he shut up for a second? He responded with every insult/threat with one of his own. What matters is that by choosing to engage in a pointless, hostile verbal spat, he increased the likelihood of a physical confrontation. Do you disagree on that? Do you think that him getting punched would be more likely if he walked away with "Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean anything by it." and kept quiet the rest of the way?
Durvasa you are backing your positions with many words, but few statistics - thus your argument is flawed.
So the lesson is its ok to verbally abuse others, because there's no harm in words? You teach that lesson to your kids? To what purpose? To me, it is pretty clear. The goal was not dissuade the little guy from becoming violent. It was fairly obvious that, if anything, it would have the opposite effect. The goal was for him to not lose face in a public setting; to protect his ego. Well, nothing wrong with that in itself, except he should have known that such remark would be taken as a challenge. And the little guy, similarly short-sighted, would respond to protect his ego as well. And so, the back and forth ensues, with both sides putting little thought into where it is all heading.
