I was just looking through the comments, I knew someone would post this

Not really....

c... context..?

The riot that would be going on here... not whatever you were planning you sick FK

1. The frame is like, you know, the strongest part of any vehicle.

2. You are severely under estimating the strength of a transmission. The only thing that is going to get damaged here are the cars tires.

3. That's life.

He's talking about tearing out the transmission, not the body.

Only for blocking the other cars. The road isn't blocked enough to matter. As for the car's transmission, who gives a fuck? They're an asshole.

>being an asshole apparently allows you to destroy their shit.
>guess I can go and find some random assholes house, break their stuff, set their house on fire and shit like that, because they are an asshole.

Seriously. Being an asshole is bad. Breaking others stuff and breaking the law is even worse.

Replying to >>#77
You're correct. I never said there is a standard right or wrong. It changes from person to person. That's all I've been trying to say this whole time.

"Therefor we can only see him as wrong."
Again, that changes based on the viewer, but you catch my drift.

The law isn't the perfect example of moral code, so the law shouldn't even come into account when discussing morals.

As for being an asshole earning your shit being broken (but fixable, don't exaggerate with 'destroyed'), yeah. I would say they did deserve it.

except getting shit 'fixed' costs money, money that some people may not have at any given moment and therefor has to wait to get their shit fixed until they can pay for it, which in the case of a damaged car can be very bad, since many people needs cars to get around without taking public transport, that takes ages.

If you think that people being an asshole gives you the right to break their stuff, then you are the true asshole.

And you are entitled to that opinion.

when you break peoples stuff, then you being an asshole is not an opinion. It is a fact.

Matters of morale code are always opinions. Don't try to disguise them as fact.

but you are.
You said them being an asshole gives you the right to break their stuff, this is stated as a fact, even if, as you just said, them being an asshole is purely opinion.
And you can't just do crimes, because you, by pure opinion, don't like the guy.

I didn't say I was stating facts. These are my opinions on the matter, just as yours are.
Also, you can't LEGALLY do crimes because you don't like someone. But MORALLY, you could, if it's within your morals.

morals, like opinions, don't give you the right to break the damn law.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
If you do happen to do the crime,
you deserve the time, or the fine.

Again, you're speaking from the law's perspective, which isn't the only perspective.

it is the perspective that only matters.
Your opinion or your own personal moral doesn't give you any right to go on a crime-spree.
Morals change from person to person and can't therefor be trusted.

Again, you're using the word "right", which changes based on perspective. you're acting like law is the only perspective that matters when, really, it only matters if you get caught.

you do truly live up to your username.
a true psyko.
Seriously. So it is ok, legally, to go on a murder-spree, as long as you don't get caught? and since it may be morally right for the person that does the murders, he is also morally correct, according to you at least?
How about you go live in a cave, where you won't be a danger to everyone around you, since we all now know you are only a moral decision away from killing anyone around you.

I'm not talking about legally right. You keep bringing up legally, but that's not what I'm talking about. Then you start bringing up extremes, such as murder sprees, when the only thing up for debate was destruction of private property.
You attempt to use hyperbole to make the other person's argument seem extreme, when it's nowhere near what you are implying.

When you are breaking peoples stuff, it automatically brings in the legal-system as well to the debate, if you truly can't see the simple, plain logic in that, then we got nothing further to discuss.

Again, it only brings in the legal system if you get caught. If not, only morals matter.

'blah blah only guilty if you get caught blah blah everything is ok as long as the cops don't see'

Seriously, moral can only get you so far, when moral changes from person to person and everyone has different values on what is 'ok' in certain situations.
Just because a person thinks it is ok to burn down the car of a person that knocked him over on the street, doesn't mean it is ok.

There is no global moral standard, it changes from person to person.

"Just because a person thinks it is ok to burn down the car of a person that knocked him over on the street, doesn't mean it is ok. "
It's ok as far as his morals are concerned, if he believes so. It's not for person B's morals, or the legal system.

"Seriously, moral can only get you so far, when moral changes from person to person and everyone has different values on what is 'ok' in certain situations. "
You are stating exactly the thing I've been trying to say this whole time.

Legally, yes, he's in the wrong. But I'm not talking about legally.

and there is no 'morally right' because morals change and can't therefor be 'right' since there is no true meaning of 'morally right'
Therefor we can only see him as wrong.

Dragging a car while its in park is an easy way to ruin a transmission.

1 he used a winch on the frame somewhere not a tow truck.
2 that's a lot of stress on the transmission, that's not like a handbrake. Park is not mention to be brakes.
3 yeah they can still get around but 99% of places put a tag on the window then in X amount of time they tow it. They don't go hunt down the driver.

1. The frame is like, you know, the strongest part of any vehicle.

2. You are severely under estimating the strength of a transmission. The only thing that is going to get damaged here are the cars tires.

3. That's life.

He's talking about tearing out the transmission, not the body.

Well, they are a couple who regularly do stuff this like to each other. Go on YouTube and look up Prank Vs Prank... They're actually pretty funny. So yeah, he's probably getting some anyway

I did not know that, thanks for the heads up.

I was thinking it was a random prank. And he nailed that ass

Constant velocity joint. Used in most modern cars