Chris Benoit Story

Tanizaki said:
This is ludicrous. Allow me to unravel the flaws in your argument.


While I have no idea what its like to be a pro wrestler, I notice that the vast majority of them manage to abstain from committing murder-suicides. In my universe, a stressful job is not license to commit homicides.


So what? Does this mean nothing can be ascertained regarding the event? Let me guess - you think the mob did it, just like they killed Marilyn Monroe!



We are absolutely entitled to judge people based on their actions. What kind of Romper Room nonsense is this? I am a lawyer, and even I am rolling my eyes at your gratuitous use of "allegedly".
Click to expand...

OH thats right, I forgot... nobody here believes in God, Christ, or the Bible...

Where do you think we got the "Thou shalt not kill" law?

If he were alive, he'd be tried, convicted, and sentenced... He's not.. and will be judged in the final days.

You're rolling my eyes at allegedly eh... what happened to innocent until proven guilty? You're a lawyer? What if you had to defend Benoit, and whether or not you believe he did it, you had to try to get him off of the charges (if he were still alive), would you still roll your eyes at allegedly?

You have missed the point of my message totally.. people in this thread were not only commenting on what he did (which was tragic), but also the character of a man they didn't even know... while we can denounce the act, we don't have the right to judge the man. Not even a court of law can judge a man, they can only find him guilty or innocent.

I know he did what everyone thinks he did... but even Jeffery Dahmer was innocent until proven guilty, its our right, being a lawyer you should know that..;
 
CCR said:
No I don't, that's why I asked what the appeal of it is, it was a genuine question. All I heard back were comments like you probably don't like movies either which makes no sense. You could compare it to a play but then the scripts of WWE are awful, the acting is terrible so it's apeal obviously lies elsewhere which is why I asked what it is.
Click to expand...

I'll quote myself on this one...I did actually answer your question. That's only a small part of it though. For someone like me it's also about why certain things happen, which, i really can't get into (its hard to explain).

Streamline said:
Because we appreciate what they do and it's entertaining. That's like saying once you know acting is acting there's no appeal...:rolleyes:...There's so many elements to wrestling that marks like you don't get about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are alot of awful scripts in WWE, in fact its the wrestling fans that point out the rediculousness (if thats a word) of some of the plotting that goes on there. Let's also not forget that there are literally thousands of wrestling organizations worldwide out there, it's not just WWE.
 
Streamline said:
I'll quote myself on this one...I did actually answer your question. That's only a small part of it though. For someone like me it's also about why certain things happen, which, i really can't get into (its hard to explain).



Yes, there are alot of awful scripts in WWE, in fact its the wrestling fans that point out the rediculousness (if thats a word) of some of the plotting that goes on there. Let's also not forget that there are literally thousands of wrestling organizations worldwide out there, it's not just WWE.
Click to expand...

Like that Fake Kane. That was just awful.
Anybody know what that TNA impact is all about? Is Impact competing with WWE like wwe vs wcw?
 
jmanjman47 said:
Like that Fake Kane. That was just awful.
Anybody know what that TNA impact is all about? Is Impact competing with WWE like wwe vs wcw?
Click to expand...

The product in general is awful. TNA is another company and Impact is their weekly show. Although some will say otherwise, TNA is in no way competing with WWE, they just arn't a big enough company yet and don't draw anywhere near the amount in numbers that WWE does, but they are making steps towards that. It'll be a very long time before TNA is actually competing with WWE.
 
aevans410 said:
OH thats right, I forgot... nobody here believes in God, Christ, or the Bible...
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with the price of tomatoes?

Where do you think we got the "Thou shalt not kill" law?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the code of Ur-Nammu, or the code of Hammurabi? Both precede the Mosaic law by a number of centuries, and prohibit murder. People are so stupid about that commandment. Exodus 20:13 says "לא תרצח׃ ס", or "Do not murder". Not all homicides are murder, and the Bible is replete of sanctioned homicides that obviously are not murder.

If he were alive, he'd be tried, convicted, and sentenced... He's not.. and will be judged in the final days.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the Bible say he is being judged now, or is he just floating around in Limbo with the pagan babies at the moment?

You're rolling my eyes at allegedly eh... what happened to innocent until proven guilty? You're a lawyer? What if you had to defend Benoit, and whether or not you believe he did it, you had to try to get him off of the charges (if he were still alive), would you still roll your eyes at allegedly?
Click to expand...
As I already explained, those are standards inside a court of law. Specifically, it is the government's burden to proof its case. Since there is no prosecution here, the standard does not apply. It is not some law of the universe that we are bound to follow.

You have missed the point of my message totally.. people in this thread were not only commenting on what he did (which was tragic), but also the character of a man they didn't even know... while we can denounce the act, we don't have the right to judge the man. Not even a court of law can judge a man, they can only find him guilty or innocent.
Click to expand...
But we can. We are perfectly entitled to judge the character of people, whether or not we know them. I will probably never meet Charles Manson, but I am entitled to make a judgment of his character.

I know he did what everyone thinks he did... but even Jeffery Dahmer was innocent until proven guilty, its our right, being a lawyer you should know that..;
Click to expand...
No, he was not innocent until proven guilty. A legal burden of proof is not a metaphysical constant. Dahmer was guilty of the acts as soon as he committed them. "innocent until proven guilty" (which actually isn't the standard - the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt) only applies tot he state's ability to deprive him of his life, liberty, and property. I know this because I am a lawyer and thus am not stupid about how the standard works.
 
OK, let's not get into the religion thing - again. We've already been there and done that - most of us know who believes what.


For the innocent until proven guilty -

I never really thought of it that way. We have always equated that phrase with some law of life, as if it is wrong to assume anyone guilty or innocent until proven so. Although that isn't what it actually means.

It really does only mean that a court of law cannot take away your liberty until you have been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that the average joe on the street has no right to make a judgment call and believe someone to be guilty or innocent before they have gone through the courts. Guess we learn something new all the time.

Wow, someone can actually learn something useful from a lawyer. Who knew?
 
They are arguing at eachother about something, but they sound like they are talking about two different things.:yelrotflmao:
 
calcium said:
Tani, are you indian?
Click to expand...

There are many races of people who are called indian. Be more specific. Also, if you are referring to Native Americans, call them Aboriginal people, Native people or First Nations people. Any of these are acceptable. Don't call them INDIANS or SAVAGES.
 
NooneKnows07 said:
def. nothin against aevans but yea..
Click to expand...

Aevans in no way got 'owned'. Tanizaki is running through this thread giving a comeback to everything written, not even considering what other people are trying to say. He does it in every thread, nobody noticed? Just an annoying character really. Make your point, but you don't need to continuously quote with 'am I right' straight afterwards. It's pathetic.
 
SKMMAN said:
There are many races of people who are called indian. Be more specific. Also, if you are referring to Native Americans, call them Aboriginal people, Native people or First Nations people. Any of these are acceptable. Don't call them INDIANS or SAVAGES.
Click to expand...

I agree. But what about Australians?
 
Woodt said:
Aevans in no way got 'owned'. Tanizaki is running through this thread giving a comeback to everything written, not even considering what other people are trying to say. He does it in every thread, nobody noticed? Just an annoying character really. Make your point, but you don't need to continuously quote with 'am I right' straight afterwards. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...

I gave him a redass beatdown.

AM I RITE!
 
Woodt said:
I agree. But what about Australians?
Click to expand...

Aboriginals and torres straight islanders are NOT indians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top