Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Originally posted by 76Razor:
Originally posted by overthemiddle:
Remember the Boise guy was talking s**t and his team suspended him too. If your gonna talk s**t you better be prepared to defend yourself, he didnt and he got nailed. Too bad for the Boise guy. You all can talk s**t behind your computer and dont have to worry about the hardrive nailing you. In the real world you talk s**t you gonna get nailed and that is just the way life is. If you dont like it dont talk s**t. Man that was a lot of s**t.
so talking s**t in a sporting event should warrant sucker punches? LOL. what a clown. I haven't seen an Internet tough guy in here for a while. welp...here you are.
Although punching isn't good, the boise st. player just won and went up to him to celebrate in his face. If you're a competitor, you can understand how lame that move was. Punching him was bad but in the end, both guys learned a lesson.
Wait... so are you saying that the show of poor sportsmanship should be taken into account when judging someone for an act of physical violence? Extenuating circumstances?
Does this only apply to competitors? Do you include all athletes? What about someone playing checkers?
At what point do you draw the line when defending the competitor? Is it just limited to punches? How many? Would you feel compelled to defend the competitor if he stabbed the opponent with a knife?
I'm not just being a smart ass here. I understand that it is a common viewpoint that some non-violent acts are expected to be responded to with violence. I'm just curious if there's an ethical basis for this stance or if you haven't actually thought it out. It's interesting to me how some sentiments are just accepted as reality sometimes.
I probably just think too f**king much.