Choose a religion? Really?
NaiveChild's forum posts
I've never really taken any really hard classes.:?
Actually I did have a really hard history course. It was basic, but the teacher always covered more "in-depth" topics than what we were tested on. I did well on most of the tests, but the class average was less than 50%. And it was freshman year of highschool. :o
But I do have AP Chemistry in a couple weeks. Everyone else going into it already took the basic chemistry course, except me and one other kid. I only know the symbols of about five elements. This is going to be fun.
The K-21 kitten rifle. Each kitten would be propelled on a fluffy cloud pillow over a rainbow into the target's hands, wherein he would instantly forget his evil intentions and have no choice but to enter into a loving embrace with the shooter and become his best friend.
The thread title is irrelevant, because money is never an object.
I'd be in the middle of the Sahara with no food or water.
I've been kicked by admins from the same Wolfenstein:ET server a half dozen times for wallhacks. I never used wallhacks, so it always made me feel good.
I wouldn't want to kill him. Isn't that why everyone hates him in the first place, because he killed a lot of people? I'd hate to hate myself.
Yeah, "do unto others as you would have done unto you". These very well could have killed somebody. They then had the same done unto them. Seeing as how the shop owner had the choice of "dying" or "killing" I don't really think his actions fit that little saying unless you want to suggest that he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
Also, sorry for the double post, but ever since GS changed the copy/paste system to that javascript bs it's been impossible for me to combine two quotes in the same post.
gameguy6700
It means treat others how you want to be treated, not treat other people how they treat you. That's "an eye for an eye," and it's one of the more common ways people try to justify doing something evil.
"I had to kill them, I had no choice." No, you did have a choice, and you chose to kill someone based on the probability that they might end up killing someone themselves. All the owner did was take the chance that someone was going to die and make it unmistakably certain, and then multiply the lives lost by two. But now he can point the finger at the robbers, and say that they're responsible for what he did. It doesn't make any sense.
Log in to comment