not like they mutilated his corpse

It doesn't matter

But, this cheering at the death of a criminal is only a minor manifestation of barbarism

In the West today there are perhaps far worse things

I get that

but it isn;t simply cheering at death

I understand your point

This isn't an innocent person

I'm just saying you're wrong

says the guy who's wrong AND gay

Kek

ooof wrong AND gay

Hey, I have a new theory to propose. Do you guys think Hillary Clinton is even real? I've never seen her in real life, so why should I believe she exists?

He was attacking an old woman so it was fair tbh

it's never a pretty sight but it's necessary sometimes

@Loganblahtimes2 now yuo see, we live in a society

what are your guys thoughts on stratocracy?

That gosh dack stratosphere allows us to live and blocks uv rays, so i like stratocracy

Thanks Jesus

Here is the issue with the death thing. Some people deserve to die, it is a fact, to cheer the victory of good over evil is nothing short of good itself and healthy. If you mourn the defeat of evil then there is something wrong with you. Alternatively you simpl have an existential crisis and fear death, seeing someone die then spurs this fear in you.

If we are to mourn death of all people, then we necessarily need mourn rapists, murderers, serial killers and the most vile of the vile, people who took pleasure in taking life from others, had no consideration for others. In fact I would claim that to mourn them would be to disprespect their victims. We all inherently have the right to life however that right is necessarily forfeited when we put the life of others in danger consciously. (such as attempted murder, kidnapping etc. Otherwise self defense and savig others is never justified)

Glory to the hero, hail the people, and may god have merc on us sinners.

what in the blue

For starters I utterly disagree with your argument

I'm in the "bring back gladiator combat for public spectacle" camp.

many dont kow this but gladiators rarely fought to the death

it was bloody but chances are it was superficial wounds

honestly MMA is alreayd pretty bloody

imagine adding more blood and small wounds

sometimes a high stakes to the death spectacle

i dont agree with to the death but that would be bringing back gladiators in the fullest

Right, gladiators fought to submission but there were frequent incidental deaths

the loser would usually be killed if he was maimed during the fight, sometimes by his own request

It depended if I remember correctly they had high risk and low risk fights, so anything from a boxing match to fights to the death.

it depended on how badly maimed he was, did he lose an arm, get stibbed in the lung. If he was dying anyways then it was simly mercy to finish him quickly. However if he was injured, broken boe, deep laceration, etc. then he was kept alive and usually sent to the nearest medical facility they had. Ancient medicine was actually pretty advanced tbh

for example trepenation of the skull wasnt done out of superstition or in random places, but rather in areas that were located or suspected to have hematomas. The clinical signs that are described and drawn are typical for sub arachnoid hemoorage. And honestly it had a decent success rate.

the ancients were even better versed in amputation and surgery than medieval persons

basically the medieval ages was the golden age for weapons and industrial tech, the ancient world was the best intellectual age, and now we have the best consumerist age

implying there's anything good about consumerism

true, I mean generally there isnt anything inherently good about any of the ages, just htat both medieval, reneissance, and ancient times had the greatest fruits

currently the fruit is degeneracy and conflict

One does not celebrate the death of a criminal for the same reason one does not celebrate flushing the toilet

It is perverse

But you do celebrate flushing the toilet lmao