Has it occurred to you that:
3. You are not making any sense, let alone as relating to topic?
You claimed that someone that could have perhaps prevented a murder, is somehow guilty of that murder. Are you that estranged from legal and objective reality that you think that is the case, much more wtf is the relevance to EVE?
If someone standing next to me shoots someone and kills someone, how am I guilty of murder? You need your head checked, man.
In EVE, if someone blows up a ship near me, is that somehow my fault cos I didnt intervene?
You said that there are many who think like I do. I do not question that they exist, but I question that it matters. As long as they are single, independent voices, they don’t matter. To prove my point, I ask questions:
I don’t mean to be aggressive. I ask these questions, because I believe that they bring up the point I’m trying to make. So I ask you to answer them.
That’s 1) in other words paired with denial because you don’t want to or can’t comprehend the argument, despite having it explained to you.
There’s actually a legal definition for it. It’s called complicity to murder, like I pointed out a few posts above. And yes, you can go to jail for it for a very long time.
You need to read and comprehend before trying to counter an argument.
Does it matter? Is there a legal system in EVE? Are there any repercussions if you don’t do anything? Are there repercussions if you do?
Try abstraction. It really isn’t hard to see the correlation between my comment and yours.
You dont understand law, much less the most demanding and exclusive charge of murder.
Nor is any of that relevant to EVE.
Blowing up a ship in EVE is not murder.
Nor is standing near someone that commits murder.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Its not a matter of “abstraction”, its a complicated result of legality resulting from thousands of years of jurisprudence.
If I would have another example for the same point, I’d have used it. But would that have helped, I doubt it.
It IS a matter of abstraction. Because I made an ABSTRACT point and just used a specific example to make that point. Instead of comprehending the abstract point I made, you’re entirely focusing on the specific example, while also ignoring parts of exactly that example.
That’s where you went wrong and that’s why you don’t get the point. You’re seeing it from the completely wrong angle.
You claimed anyone that does not prevent a murder, is complicit in murder.
You claimed murder is a matter of abstraction.
All the above are unequivocably false.
Ship destruction in EVE is not murder.
Not stopping a murder, does not make you complicit.
Murder is not an abstract, it is a concrete result of both intent and act.
Not at all, no. I merely intended for that to mean that I’ll stop trying to get you do understand my point.
It’s just a guess because I usually know you to be able to make decent arguments and comprehend a point. Your reactions in this thread don’t really fit how I usually perceive you, hence the question if you’re influenced by something at the moment.
Autism. No social competence 'n such. Hence why I’m so direct. It’s because my brain doesn’t work like that of a “normal” person.