MovieChat Forums > P2 (2007) Discussion > I've Noticed a Double Standard

I've Noticed a Double Standard

posted 13 years ago by loup_garou13
31 replies | jump to latest

Or something in that direction/to that affect. I apologize for my limited vocabulary.

WARNING: THOUGHTS OF FAIRLY SANE NATURE COMING UP. IF YOU'RE NOT HERE TO CONVERSE ALL CIVIL-LIKE THAN I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU SCURRY ON ELSEWHERE.

Anyway, I was watching some movies today and thought on something. Everyone seems to have this huge hatred for Tom (my personal stance is not being addressed. I am simply speaking of what I've observed. I shall do my best to remain neutral for the sake of discussion), but in movies I have noticed characters much more destructive than him and sharing traits with him who are much more accepted and even loved by people for the characters they are. Is there something with Tom that makes him so much more detestable or less worthy of finding fascinating. You don't have to be all for him, but what makes him impossible of being looked at objectively.

For example, The Phantom of the Opera. I can draw quite a number of similarities between these two men. They both pine for one woman strongly, will kill for their endeavors, and are quite noticeably separated from the societies they are part of. In fact, I do believe the phantom kills more people than Tom. Is it because Christine returns the affection even if only a bit? Is it because it is easy for one to distance themselves from a musical genius living beneath the Paris Opera House? Perhaps, but still, the fact remains that he too killed people, obsessed over a woman, and ultimately suffered for it. What is it that makes him a more sympathetic character?

How about Hannibal Lector? He has done such...well, let's face it, gruesome things. I think it's safe to assume he's done more damage than Tom and is in my mind much more terrifying. Still, there's this interesting sort of fascination people have with him. Is it because he has this essence of untouchability to him? This air that makes people feel like "nah, that could never happen". Does Tom lack that? Is his insanity more tangible, more possible to the point where it is easier seeing oneself turn into a Thomas rather than a Hannibal? Is that what makes people quick to turn on Tom? They don't wish to believe that someone like him is quite so easy to become? Because honestly, I can see Tom being a person in society. He's the lonely guy, but to an extreme, but not an unattainable extreme.

Perhaps it's the human-ness that bothers people. Some villains are just villains and it is hard to see them being anything but that and the campiness is comfortable. Personally, with Tom I see a person with the potential to be fairly normal. He likes Hemingway, Sonoma wine, Elvis, dogs, and chit-chat. All of those being pretty normal things. Heck, I think some of my friends have the same likes, but they don't bludgeon people...not that I'm aware of anyway.

So, please, enlighten me, what does Tom do differently that makes him so...I don't even know the word for it. Seriously, when I think about it, compared to other villains Tom's deeds seem to come off as comparatively tame. They're no less terrible, but just...I guess smaller scale and yet I see so much more hate for him than characters who are more well known. Do we just decide that someone is worse than another with no real rhyme or reason? Does popularity get people off the hook? If that is so than...well, then I'm not sure what to think.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] freezsoul-1 13 years ago

The best part of the movie was when he found his dead dog, and something actually fazed him. I love it when movie psychopaths get their composure disrupted.

At what point was Tom not fazed by something? He didn't really have much 'cool' to begin with and he lost what he attempted of it pretty often...
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"So, what do you say we kill some evil sons of bitches and we raise a little Hell?"-Dean Winchester

[–] Lyka_XVI 13 years ago

interesting thoughts, but i think the reason people respond so negatively has to do with the underlyring cause of his obsession. You compare him to the phantom, and while the two do similar things, their circumstances are very different.

Firstly, you are assuming that the phantom and Tom are both monsters of the same mould, but the phantom was not born a monster; he was made to believe he was one because society had labelled him a freak. Had he not been shunned by his mother and rejected from society he would not only have been a healthy human being (save for his physical appearance) but a very gifted one at that. Ergo, he is not obsessed with Christine herself, but what she represents - beauty, happiness and most of all love. We sympathise because we all want the same things, but for him it is unattainable, so he becomes the mad recluse longing for something that never comes. As for the killing, he has been called a monster his whole life, so he believes this himself and gives in to the role

The same can be said for Hannibal to a degree; he was made into a monster the day his sister died. But his humanity holds by a thread because of Clarice - she looks him in the eye and does not fear him, so he pines more for what she represents than Clarice herself.

For Tom, on the other hand, there does not seem to be a reason for his obessive behaviour other than underlying psychological imbalances - most probably psychopathy. Symptoms of this disorder include superficial charm, grandiose sense of self worth, pathological lying, manipulation and lack of remorse. Its clear with this in mind that she does not represent something he longs for other than an object that must be obtained. The fact that he can't have her makes him want her all the more, as though she were a toy.

The audience can sense all this without realising it. You're right about the human-ness, because in real life people would shy away from Tom because of his lack of sympathy/empathy - or what we deem to be humanity.

Then again, it all might be due to the fact that the Phantom never called Christine a *beep*

[–] freezsoul-1 13 years ago

Ergo, he is not obsessed with Christine herself, but what she represents - beauty, happiness and most of all love.

How is that any better? Is it not 'crazy' and solipsistic to assign an abstract value to a person? He's not really in love with her. I would argue that 'making' people embody concepts is even more dangerous than having(or admitting to have) actual feelings towards the person. See, for example, Crime and Punishment. Tom's perogative is lust(or at least his self-sanitized version of it) which is arguably a lot more honest than claiming the person as a symbol to distance himself from his feelings.

By the same coin, how could you say for sure that Tom doesn't do the same thing. He's lonely and isolated-Angela just represents some kind of human contact, the sum of the human relationships he can't seem to have(hence the "Can't we just be friends?" at the end)

For Tom, on the other hand, there does not seem to be a reason for his obessive behaviour other than underlying psychological imbalances - most probably psychopathy. Symptoms of this disorder include superficial charm, grandiose sense of self worth, pathological lying, manipulation and lack of remorse.

The audience can sense all this without realising it. You're right about the human-ness, because in real life people would shy away from Tom because of his lack of sympathy/empathy - or what we deem to be humanity.

We don't necessarily know that. The seeds for those tendencies could have grown because he was ignored, not vice versa. I don't buy this idea that 'you can just tell' when there's something wrong with people. Yes, there are people who rub others the wrong way who turn out to be damaged but I've known enough of those people who turn out to be perfectly fine(and a lot of personable, popular 'normal' people who turn out to be snakes in the grass).

Also, he never really embodies the 'smarm' that people tend to associate with such personalities-he's more awkward than anything.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"So, what do you say we kill some evil sons of bitches and we raise a little Hell?"-Dean Winchester

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] loup_garou13 13 years ago

Well, circumstances or otherwise, you admit they are similar. And that's my argument. You're going to feel bad for someone whether they're from Tokyo or Athens, 19th century or 25th. All you've really made mention in that is that they come from different places and times, but I'll tell you now that lonely doesn't have a nationality or a specific time.

You're assuming an awful lot yourself. How do we know that Tom was "born a monster". Implying that everyone that is born with mental imbalances is going to become some sort of inhuman creature? That is simply not true for there are plenty of people who have compromised mental states, but with the proper care can live out perfectly functional lives. Tom appears to have not gotten that sort of care, so if it's true, either way through abuse of some kind, not particularly physical, both men could have molded into what we see on the screen. In that way, they are of the same mold. We don't have evidence of Tom's life previous to this, so to assume that he has always been that way seems, well, quite frankly unfair.

Also, Freez brings up some very good points, ones that I agree with as you could probably tell from that previous statement.

And though it's hard to tell at times, Tom does have humanity left in him. He mourns for the loss of his dog, he goes to check on Angela after the whole car flipping incident (though that clearly didn't play out in his favor), and there seems to be part of him that still knows that this whole incident is bad. Making mention of how Angela is a "good person" and things like that. Tom has quite a few moments where he is just all too human.

And again, we don't know Tom's history. For all we know he could have been a perfectly happy guy until circumstances made him how he is. That's kind of the point of the movie I think. He's been isolated in the parking garage for so long that it has worn on his mental health, which could have very well been what set him off. Not particularly being "born that way". Seriously, I kind of doubt he's had much human contact due to his job, and he's clearly very awkward in social situations, repeating himself, pointing out his own imperfections, etc. Heck, he can't even make proper small talk, which kind of kills the superficial charm argument. He's just really freaking awkward and just parroting what he knows should be said, but he does it terribly. Also, if you're referring to "charm" as in the incident with the police, that wasn't so much charm as it was giving off the semblance of normal.

I don't recall any moments of Tom thinking himself to be of great worth, either. Maybe I'm just used to people with bigger egos than those of parking attendants with essentially no social contact. Also, I can see Angela being worth something more than just a thing to obtain. Tom yearns for companionship. He'd probably take anything at this point, as Freez said, he constantly asks if they could at the very least "just be friends".

But yeah, anything I didn't say, Freez kind of got for me.

And if calling someone a nasty name is a reason to kill someone well, then I probably should be dead.

[–] suck_my_converse11 13 years ago

i think you guys are kind of missing the point. the story is about angela and her struggle. tom is there to be the bad guy. the reason the phantom and hannibal are less hated is because ppl can relate to them. it's very natural for ppl to assign an abstract idea to a person or a thing. people can understand that, especially since both the phantom and hannibal have a back story that arouses sympathy and understanding. if tom had a back story then people would probably have more sympathy for him. and it was very obvious that tom wouldn't really be able to be "just friends". he killed people for her and set a dog on her when she wouldn't stay with him. she was willing to walk away, but his anger and lashing out at her after saying no proved that he wouldn't change. that the whole "just friends" thing was a way to try and manipulate her into a sense of false security and that knowledge sent her over the edge

[–] loup_garou13 13 years ago

Missing the point? I don't believe that's possible. The point of the movie you made is valid, and I'm not going to say your wrong because there is no evidence to say that you are. And there are tons of people who are put in films to "be the bad guy", but that doesn't give a person any less of a reason to feel they identify or have their own perspective on them. That's really the beauty of films, literate, anything creative really. Yes, there's usually some sort of point, but the fact that it's there does not invalidate the interpretations of those that look into it.

Also, are you implying that it is impossible to have sympathy for someone without a background or history for me to look into? That's just not true. I don't need to know how someone got to a point where I'd feel bad to feel bad for them. I can see someone break their leg and not even know them and feel bad in the same way that I see that Tom is really lonely and feel kind of bad. I don't feel bad for what he did. I feel bad for the fact that he felt he had to take those actions. I feel bad that he's that darn sad. I don't have to know history to feel sympathy. Besides, as little as there is in the film, Tom does have some background. He's come all the way across the country, and through some course of events he's come to feel like an outsider and unwanted. I'd say that warrants as a background however vague.

Also, that's and interesting point you bring up with Tom not being able to be "just friends". The evidence you give after it really doesn't validate that point, and you just seem to be spewing a random thing you think, which quite honestly is no different than what I did. All you've just said is an opinion, and you know what? You're not particularly wrong, but that's not how I see things, but that doesn't mean I've missed the point or that you have. It's all a matter of perspective, and really now, what's anything worth if there aren't different opinions to discuss?

Missing the point? No, I don't think I have, but I think you've missed the point of the discussion.

[–] qofreason 13 years ago

We are more forgiving of talented people. We respect Hannibal Lecter's world class mind, even if it is demented and evil. However...

Tom's a loser. He has a loser job and a loser love life. A genuinely nice guy loser is still a loser and women hate, hate, hate losers (in terms of social shaming it's the female equivalent of a slut, but in some ways worse).

[–] suzycreamcheese1 13 years ago

Who is "we"? And what women?

RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

[–] qofreason 13 years ago

We = audience

When I say "women hate..." I mean women in general.

[–] CCRider01 12 years ago

"We are more forgiving of talented people. We respect Hannibal Lecter's world class mind, even if it is demented and evil."

Exactly, Hannibal Lector was not your garden variety evil nutcase, he was charming, a man of great intellect and refinement. Some people like McDonalds, he just happened to prefer human liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti LOL.

Hannibal was the kind of guy that if he was not so dangerous and unpredictable, many people would find him great company, his brilliant mind and sense of culture would even elicit admiration.

Hannibal also showed his "gentleman" side around Clarise, he was protective of her, and kind of a mentor in some way. There was always a mutual respect between them. Hanibal had qualities that made him likeable, its just that his evil side made him untrustworthy and ultimately reviled.

Tom on the other hand, had very little to be admired for, sympathy perhaps by some people. I suppose you could use the word "loser" to describe Tom, but not the lovable kind.

[–] loup_garou13 12 years ago

I'd submit that Tom probably wouldn't be bad company either if he had all his facets going for him and wasn't the killing type. Probably more like the awkward kid at school whom everyone's kind of aware of and thinks about occasionally and by the end gets a girl just as nerdy and awkward as he is (sadly, this film is not a high school romantic comedy...though that does give me an idea...).

He's into reading, which is something many people admire. He's also the cliche romantic type, taking pointers from books and most likely other media to form his ideas of what is good an proper for a first date. I think most people would enjoy it if someone made them dinner/took them somewhere nice for dinner and tried to get to know them (Yes, Tom went about it completely wrong, but right now I'm just going off of principle). That in and of itself is not offensive and oddly endearing.

Let's see, he also likes animals, which is something many people seem to enjoy, and his awkwardness can be seen as "cute" or "appealing" to some people. An animal rights person would be all up in his face about how strongly he feels about animals being harmed. It pulls on all his heart strings...or whatever the equivalent would be in the empty void that pumps black sludge through his veins that many people believe he has. Personally, I think he's just got a normal, human, heart, but hey...what do I know?

So, yeah, he's no Hannibal Lector. He's not a genius or an artist or highly cultured, but if you take away the element that makes him the villain he can be seen as an almost lovable loser. He tries his best and has a bad habit of failing miserably. He wants to be a knight in shining armor, but he doesn't possess the proper skill set. He's a bit bumbling and awkward and interested in strange things and fidgety, which if television and movies tells us anything is that those qualities are what people should be looking for in potential partners. XD The show "New Girl" comes to mind.

Hannibal just happens to prefer human liver and Tom just so happens to want to slay dragons that happen to be other people. Nobody's perfect :D

Also, for fear of being misunderstood, which happens a lot on these boards it would seem, I'm not saying your point is invalid or trying to be mean. All has been said in good humor and I hope you don't take offense.

[–] Nivram76 13 years ago

Tom was mentally ill - he needed help - and by yelling See you next Tuesday at her while she was walking away was to provoke a reaction/make her turn round. She shouldn't have set him on fire for it.

[–] Hey_Sweden 12 years ago

I didn't hate Tom. In no way did I excuse the things he did, but I could feel something approaching sympathy for him at times.

[–] smacberry 12 years ago

OP: Relax, there's no need to be rude with people.
I think the simple fact here is that some villains in films/TV are presented as just that, villains. The director/writer of the feature WANTS you to dislike them, so they set it up that way by using appropriate story/filming/creative elements. They don't offer any redeeming qualities or reasons for you to sympathize with them. You're supposed to sympathize with the protagonist.

While some other villains in films/TV are presented as a protagonist, someone to root for, ex. Hannibal Lector, who was, I would argue, presented as a "good" bad guy. He was, in a way, on Clarice's side. Another example: Dexter, in the TV show Dexter. The guy is a serial killer, but he is the protagonist of the entire show, because he is presented that way, and therefore people root for him and are on his side. Period.

[–] loup_garou13 12 years ago

I'd hardly say I was being all that rude, but you're entitled to your opinion. If people are rude to me first I will reply back with my opinion on their statement. That's how people debate and speak. It's not always lovey dovey all the time. Had I yelled at the person or called them names I'd be more inclined to agree.

And actually, I watched the commentary for the film fairly recently, though it's not as overt as in some cases, and even perhaps a little jokingly, Franck Khalfoun as well as the other creators tend to refer to Tom as not being a completely horrible guy as many villains are.

The fact that it's not as obvious can lead others to think the person is completely bad, but the fact remains that the creators did not entirely wipe out Tom's ability to be sympathized with. In fact there are plenty of opportunities where they provide the audience an opportunity to feel some pity for him, when he's talking about his lonely life, his grief when his dog is killed, the sniveling and crying, etc. If there was to be no sympathy to be given to him Tom would have no human qualities but he does. Tom is the villain, that cannot be denied. However, there are still villains with far less, to be blunt "levels of pathetic", whom still garner more sympathy than Tom does.

But Tom's a loser, and we don't like losers, which has been stated. It's rather unfortunate for him. Doesn't change his level of villainy. Just makes him more flawed and uncomfortable human.

And yes, those examples are seen as protagonists, and though your point is valid, and I don't think Tom is a protagonist or even portrayed fully as one, I still feel that he is in a way a victim/villain. Not because he is killed in the end but because while he performs his own actions he also suffers for them as well. Both he and Angela are victims of himself. I feel sympathy for him because he is subject to his own insanity and pays for it.

I don't feel bad because I think him to be a protagonist, though his delusions of himself could lead him and do lead him to feel like something of a white knight. I feel bad that he was allowed to get to such a point in his life, which is quite honestly avoidable. Usually people don't just become "crazy" out of nowhere, and Tom was clearly functioning well enough for a while to land a job. I'm assuming this story takes place in a relative level of normalcy where people have reasons for being the way they are, but that is my interpretation and I used Tom's explanations of why he is the way he is, "always alone" etc., to support my idea that his behavior is partially, if not fully due to some kind of abuse, though not in the way most people think of that word. Just a general neglect of human needs.

Long story short, I just don't feel that people should be allowed to get that lonely, that low. That's where my sympathy lies, in the formation of what Tom is.

[–] bravhart_1 12 years ago

We look at this so differently. I would feel sorry for him but he's dangerous. I agree no one should have to be that lonely but thats life. There is never a reason to kidnap, molest, or injure another because of personal issues. I said it in another rant about this. If one intentionally attacks someone they deserve what they get. In this case to be handcuffed to a car and set on fire..I bet he wishes he was still just lonely now right?? To hell with his sick ass!

[–] loup_garou13 12 years ago

And that's perfectly fine. To see things differently is only human. To yell at other people and to insult them is rude. In some ways yelling at people can be seen as an attack on other people, key word here being "attack", and thus anything done to said attacker can be seen as them "deserving it". So if I were to outright attack you back I could defend it by saying you deserved it, and by your own logic I would be correct in my actions.

And the fact that you agree with the idea that one should not get to the point of feeling so lonely and down essentially means you're agreeing with the core of my point from that other comment. People should not be allowed to be mistreated to the point of emotional, psychological, and certainly not physical, I suppose the word here would be "dysfunction". Based on that, all the characters I mentioned warrant some amount of pity. Perhaps not the same amount, but still something. This does not excuse their behavior and it never will, but it does accept them as being flawed, and really now, there's nothing wrong with being flawed. It is only human to be such.

And someone being dangerous is no reason not to feel sorry for them. The Phantom is dangerous, and he still garners sympathy along with many people saying he didn't deserve what he got. Being dangerous simply means that they can hurt you, but it does not invalidate how one perceives them. As you said, we look at this very differently. You view him as someone not being worthy of sympathy, but I do. I never said he wasn't crazy. I never said he wasn't dangerous. I simply think that I am incapable of judging him so harshly because I am of the mindset that believes in the quote "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

And there is nothing to support or disprove whether or not he wished he was still lonely, though I'd venture a guess he'd be damn pleased to not be set on fire, but as we all know people calling you names often tips the scale on whether or not they will be set on fire.

[–] bravhart_1 12 years ago

Ok ok ok. I may have been a little fired up because of all the people angrily protesting her killing him. I`m a simple guy. He shouldnt have done those things and in the end he paid for his bad deeds as should ANYONE that would do things like that.

I`ll leave this with a quote:

If someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back!
- Capt. Malcolm Reynolds.

[–] loup_garou13 12 years ago

I don't think I've ever said once that I protested her killing him. What she did was understandable, but if one wants to debate justifiable that's an entirely different argument. Understandable =/= Justifiable. I feel that's where a lot of the confusion is coming in.

Paying for something does not particularly mean paying them back the exact same way. Revenge stories usually end up with people becoming hardened and calloused in the process of trying to avenge whatever the hell happened to them instead of actually getting over the action. In fact, it usually takes up more energy than it would have to just move on with life and do what a decent human would do. If someone throws something at your head you're going to want to throw something back. That's not the question. The question is of appropriateness. Whether the person started it or you did, the fact remains that the act itself is not right, thus both are in the wrong.

That quote you left, makes sense in the context of self-defense, which is something that is also highly debated about on these forums. Not to be mean or anything, but it would seem that a lot of people don't seem to understand the meaning of self-defense. Killing someone who has been restrained or made incapable of harming you at the time just because they MIGHT come after you later is not self defense. This is not to say she would go to jail because, honestly, I wouldn't put Angela away either. Just that circumstances the way they were does not constitute for "self-defense". For her the most logical defense would most likely be "temporary insanity" or something like that. Given the most basic definition of self-defense that is not what she did. Therefore, that quote is essentially meaningless from a strictly legal point of view. Thus, it is another moment of understandable and justifiable not being the same thing.

Just a little pet peeve of mine, it's not just you, but leaving a quote very rarely gets the point across since it is possible for them to be interpreted differently. If you're going to use a quote it would make a stronger argument it there was a better explanation for it. It's much too vague and often misses the point entirely.

[–] theunbeholden 12 years ago

"Whether the person started it or you did, the fact remains that the act itself is not right, thus both are in the wrong. "

But see 'acts' cannot be defined as right or wrong.
What you do does not define good or evil, its the why and how that does.

In this case the why is revenge.

Also when you say a person should "get over it", thats kind of hard to do. Suffering can make us a better person but if it breaks you, than thats trauma.
Chances are trauma will affect you for the rest of your life & bring all kinds of mental illnesses that you can't just 'get over'.

This really isn't a case of what a decent human being would do, because we don't know what exactly it means to be "decent". Upholding the law under any circumstance? Treating people with kindness regardless of whom they are? Being a pacifist? I don't think those extremes means to be decent.

Or just more simply, showing common curtiosy, make someone feel as comfortable as possible without being prejudice against gender, sex, race, religion, political background & never harm someone who has done no wrong, & have a sense of respect for people who help you out.

Forgiving a psychopath for trying to kill you is hard that most of us would not know how we would deal with it unless we where in that situation, it's not just about what happens but how we interpet it along the way & how we would be affected by it emotionally.

Revenge is natural so I wouldn't call it undecent.
I'd tell her to set him on fire & take out the marshmellows and weenies.

[–] loup_garou13 11 years ago

Hmm...I tried to reply to this before, but it seems IMDb ate my reply. Oh well, let's try this again.

Actually, acts can be defined as right or wrong within the confines of the film. Yes, from culture to culture and person to person there is relativism, but relativism does not invalidate all judgments of what is right and wrong. Relativism is a means of understanding, not a point to argue from. Besides, the film already sets up the limits of good and bad. The very fact that Tom is what many would think of as the villain already sets standards of behavior. What Tom does in that world, modern America, is viewed as poor behavior. If the movie promoted the idea that there is no right and wrong there would not be such a definite hero and villain.

And so what if they why is revenge? Revenge does not get someone off the hook.

I never said getting over it would be easy. It most definitely isn't, but working through the problem in a healthy and efficient manner would certainly be preferable. Immediate gratification of revenge or whatever else only goes so far. When I said get over I did not imply the process would be an immediate one. For some people maybe it is fast, but definitely not for everyone. To assume I was implying that "getting over it" would be a fast and easy process would be to assume incorrectly.

As much as I hate to repeat myself, I've already dealt with this argument. In the context of this movie we do know what it means to be decent. We have examples of what a decent human is and isn't. Tom does indecent things. We know this because he is viewed negatively and as the "bad guy". The movie already labels these things for us, so those are the standards we should hold the actions to. In a different situation perhaps things would be different, but within the context of the movie right and wrong is pretty damn clear.

Also, I never said one had to be extreme to be decent or not.

I never meant to say it would be easy, in fact forgiveness for some people in similar situations could be impossible, but just because it is difficult does not mean it should be discounted. If that were to be true not much would get done in any context would it?

You know what else is natural? Taking a crap You know what you shouldn't do? Take a crap on someone's floor. You argue that things cannot be decent or indecent and yet you are already judging the actions in this film. That is hypocritical at best.

I'd tell her that setting him on fire if going to feel awesome in the short term, but it's not replacement for actually finding healthy ways of dealing with the events that have occurred.

[–] elvis-elv 10 years ago

@bravhart_1 " We look at this so differently. I would feel sorry for him but he's dangerous. I agree no one should have to be that lonely but thats life. There is never a reason to kidnap, molest, or injure another because of personal issues. I said it in another rant about this. If one intentionally attacks someone they deserve what they get. In this case to be handcuffed to a car and set on fire..I bet he wishes he was still just lonely now right?? To hell with his sick ass!" Thats the whole point , could not say it better . feel sorry for him but he's dangerous no reason to kidnap, molest, or injure another because of personal issues ... we shud love those who loves us not to those whom we love OR love those who love us because its easy to Love a bit its difficult to BE loved

[–] davidtraversa-1 12 years ago

David Traversa. Hi loup garou 13!: I just wonder how would you have reacted in Angela's place.

[–] loup_garou13 12 years ago

Well, I honestly couldn't tell you what I'd do. I would like to believe I would be able to act rationally and sensibly, but in an extreme case like that I cannot say for sure what I would do or find myself capable of doing. Terror and panic affect people in different ways. I can speculate about proper behavior all I want, but until I am in the situation itself I cannot say anything with 100% confidence. What I could do and would do are not always going to be the same.

TL;DR: How should I know?

[–] davidtraversa-1 12 years ago

David Traversa. Loup garou 13: Exactly!! nobody is predictable. Look at all those shooting outs in the USA, where anyone can carry a gun, and later on, when they find out about the personality of the killer, his neighbors are all surprised and saying "Wow, he was such a nice boy, so polite, etc.". You're completely right!