这里是网友评论第2页，点击查看原文
发表评论 评论 (34 个评论)
- 回复 讲理
- 还争什么争？谁给你争“是非”了？我从不与人争是非，我是探讨这种方法是否妥当，是否可取。绝非“是非”问题，现在“是非”明显，还需要争吗？我态度早已表明：摩托党违法乱纪，扰乱治安，需要严惩不贷。 我只是认为方法欠当?,如何面对强敌如何自保？为何老争不到点子上？为何偷换概念，转移话题？看明白点：
正义感: 尊重谁的生命？受威胁的还是威胁人的？
尊重谁的生命？妇女孩子还是帮派成员？
尊重谁的生命？3个被包围的还是50个包围别人的？
如果你能回答这些问题，你会发 ...
1. 你如何确认下车“攻击”还是下车交涉？至少我在视频上还没看见这些人“发起攻击”，也没见持有凶器。还是那话，要是攻击的话，完全可以不必接近， 就可以把车打爆胎。美国并非荒蛮之地，对方虽有地痞流氓之嫌但还不是暴徒，虽然违法乱市并非穷凶极恶之辈。
2. 面对危险，三十六计走为上策，能跑就跑，但对方有50人之众摩托骑手，你逃得掉吗？而且既然已拨打911，此时逃离现场，警察无法到位，造成施救困难。与其这样不如等待警察。我遇见一条恶狗，跑的结果是什么？这不是常识吗？只有勇敢面对才有可能不被追打。
3. 避害趋利是人的本能，遇到这种寻衅闹事的霸道之徒，连我都避让三分，躲之犹恐不及，再说寡不敌众，何必死磕硬碰，自讨苦吃？针锋相对，你是对手吗？孤注一掷，强行撞人，激怒对方，岂不找死？结果招来一顿暴打。若不是路人出手，将会生命不保，死无葬身，惨不忍睹。若对方失去理智，连累你的家人都会无辜受害，后果不堪设想。
- 回复 正义感
- 我终于明白你的意思了：应该等警察来收尸，而不应该逃。
讲理: 还争什么争？谁给你争“是非”了？我从不与人争是非，我是探讨这种方法是否妥当，是否可取。绝非“是非”问题，现在“是非”明显，还需要争吗？我态度早已表明： ...
- 回复 正义感
- 面对这样的人，如果你不跑，你的下场是什么不是很难预料的：
讲理: 还争什么争？谁给你争“是非”了？我从不与人争是非，我是探讨这种方法是否妥当，是否可取。绝非“是非”问题，现在“是非”明显，还需要争吗？我态度早已表明： ...
From the Boston Herald: Edwin Mieses has a six-page criminal record that began at age 12 with a negligent driving charge and includes jail time for drugs, guns, resisting arrest and other convictions, according to court records.
Edwin Mieses, 32, never got a driver’s license in the Bay State, the Registry of Motor Vehicles said, but he was frequently nabbed behind the wheel, and even sentenced to jail for driving without a license, court records show. Mieses has a pending case out of Lawrence District Court for driving suspended, subsequent offense, said Carrie Kimball Monihan, spokeswoman for the Essex County District Attorney’s Office. Mieses also has 15 guilty findings for criminal offenses including distribution of cocaine, possession of a firearm without a permit, knowingly receiving stolen property, resisting arrest and several motor vehicle violations, court records show.
Mieses was sentenced to jail in 2004 for distribution of cocaine, in 2001 for operating without a license, in 2000 for possession of a firearm, and in 1999 for possession of marijuana, receiving stolen property, destruction of property and attaching plates, according to court records.
从来没有驾照到被撞倒在公路上，这可能是上帝的正义吧！
- 回复 讲理
- 你是否为他有如此的不良记录感到很庆幸？由此认为行为妥当？而如果对方记录清白，你是否就会很失望啊？就会认为行为失当？可是事先谁也不知道他这么多案底啊？也不是因为早知他的犯罪记录才有目的的撞他啊？再说当时也不是一个人啊，死的也有可能是别人啊。
正义感: 面对这样的人，如果你不跑，你的下场是什么不是很难预料的：
From the Boston Herald: Edwin Mieses has a six-page criminal record that began at age 12 wit ...
你到底想说明什么？请仔细看看我的原文，弄懂我的原意。我认为对于摩托党政府应当立法取缔，即使对方没有案底也必须严加惩处。
- 回复 正义感
- 你的原文我已经回答的很清楚了，你的意思就是他宁可等警察来收尸也不应该跑。一家被打死了他就一点没错了，但压人跑了他就错了。是这样吗？
讲理: 你是否为他有如此的不良记录感到很庆幸？由此认为行为妥当？而如果对方记录清白，你是否就会很失望啊？就会认为行为失当？可是事先谁也不知道他这么多案底啊？也 ...
我给你的信息是面对这种匪徒，即使你不知道他的过去案底，你也应该估计的出他们当时会干些啥，而他判断正确，救了全家。
- 回复 讲理
- 我说村友，有完没完？你打棍子，扣帽子的本事真大，你如何得出“等警察来收尸”这个结论？岂不是强加于人？也不能为了抢占道德制高点，不惜避实就虚，就可以罔顾事实，任意曲解对方的原意，轻下结论，我看你不像文革余孽啊? 网络是一个各抒己见的平台，现却成了一个发泄情绪的窗口，一个以争高低论输赢的地盘？
正义感: 你的原文我已经回答的很清楚了，你的意思就是他宁可等警察来收尸也不应该跑。一家被打死了他就一点没错了，但压人跑了他就错了。是这样吗？
我给你的信息是面对 ...
从我的回复中无论如何也得不出“等警察来收尸”这个结论啊！“我真服了你了”，“正义感”哪去了？这只有可能以下原因：
1. 逻辑太差，不会基本推理，或是故意所为？
2. 悟性太差，或是没仔细理解，就又瞎猜了？
事实上：要不是路人出手相助，几乎早已经是尸骨无存了，还有尸可收吗？
1. 仅仅从一个追尾事故，如何知道对方要置你于死地？这不是反应过度吗？至少我在视频上还没看见这些人“发起攻击”，也没见持有凶器。还是那话，要是攻击的话，完全可以不必接近，就可以把车打爆胎。至于存在“威胁”，这确是一种可能，更是一种假想，但不能因此反应过度。我也有几次磕碰，也下车检查交涉，我不希望别人认为我对他们有威胁而对我撞击或开枪。我也不会因为对方下车检查或为交涉私了向我走来而大打出手，怒而伤人。要按你所说，我不知应当打死了多少人，敲门促销的送报送传单的，我是否只要不高兴就可以认为都对我有威胁？美国并非荒蛮之地，对方违法未必该死，对方霸道未必无情，事实上即使把他们激怒撞伤情况下，他们也没对妻儿下手，所以“威胁家人”之说是不成立的，“威胁”是凭空想象和虚构出来的。
2. 避害趋利是人的本能，遇到危险，要善于自我保护，在势均力敌的情况下，虽不妨意气用事，一争高低，但也应尽量化解争端，更不要说在敌强我弱力量悬殊的情况下，寡不敌众，要避免感情用事，得理不让，不依不饶，死磕硬碰，以卵击石，而应以柔克刚，化解危机，好汉不吃眼前亏，识时务为俊杰。这还用我教吗？还值得我花这么多时间去重复吗？这不是是连动物都运用自如行之有效的一种本能吗？看见了狗屎是踩上一脚还是躲开？
3. 再说，面对50骑手，你能逃得掉吗？而且既然已拨打911，此时逃离现场，并不明智，造成警察无法及时到位，施救困难。而且强行撞人，制造了另一事故，进而激化矛盾，加重后果，结果若非路人出手相助，将会生命不保，死无葬身了。若对方失去理智，甚至连累你的家人都会无辜受害，后果不堪设想。
对不起，我语言刻薄，但现在好多了，过去也不那么“讲理”，没有骂不出口的话，意气用事，争强好胜，也曾一腔热血，以“正义”自居，见义勇为，拔刀相助。但从用了笔名“讲理”之后，就学会了克制，这就是为什么有几次没有对你回复，原因皆出于此，也还因为你偷换概念，转移话题，认为多争无益。
希望你下次回复之前要慎重，最好先和太太开个会，征求一下她的意见：她是否希望你遇事冷静，息事宁人？还是鲁莽行事，给家人带来麻烦？
- 回复 正义感
- 很高兴你提到“逻辑”两个字，因为你的确没有逻辑。
讲理: 我说村友，有完没完？你打棍子，扣帽子的本事真大，你如何得出“等警察来收尸”这个结论？岂不是强加于人？也不能为了抢占道德制高点，不惜避实就虚，就可以罔顾 ...
1. 逻辑差一： 仅仅从一个追尾事故，如何知道对方要置你于死地？
现在主要罪犯已经被捕，据交代，这是起故意造成的事故，而不是“仅仅从一个追尾事故”，因为这帮匪徒已经把其他汽车逼走了，就这辆路虎还在，所以他们要给他一点颜色看看。我想路虎驾驶员已经看到他们是如何对待其他汽车，已及这位驾驶员生活在当地，对这些匪徒能干什么一定非常清楚，所以正确判断这帮匪徒要置他与死地。的确，在碰撞后，路虎驾驶员停下来车，这帮人开始划他的轮胎，并企图打开他的车门。
2. 逻辑差二：避害趋利是人的本能，遇到危险，要善于自我保护。
你口口声声说要善于保护自己，可又指责他碾人逃跑。让我用一个美国人的回答来回答你：Let me be crystal clear, If that had been me, when that punk smashed my window with his helmet, there would have been .357 hollows coming at them, I'd worry about the fallout later. I hate people that are real brave with a mob, but cowards alone. 这是common sense.
3. 逻辑差三：再说，面对50骑手，你能逃得掉吗？而且强行撞人，制造了另一事故，进而激化矛盾。
他停下了车，可是在警察来之前他们已经开始动手了。你歪曲了一个基本事实就是他在没有受到威胁的情况下碾人逃走的，这也是你没有逻辑的地方之一。他是在他们企图打开车门，划轮胎后，感到妻子和孩子受到严重威胁的情况下才被迫做出这样的决定的。如果你坚持这样说，你是在颠倒是非了。
4. 逻辑差四：结果若非路人出手相助，将会生命不保，死无葬身了。
他之所以被打，是因为他不是匪徒，心不够狠。如果他心狠他可以把所有的匪徒都碾过。你认为几千磅的路虎还斗不过摩托车？你的逻辑哪去了？
现在这些人陆续到位，并且还有卧底可以作证，所有证据的方向都是与你逻辑是相反的，你倒是要好好考虑考虑你的逻辑了。
在生死一刹那的时候，你的判断力很重要，因为你手中还捏着你妻子和孩子生命。
语言刻薄我不在乎，只要对事不对人就可以了。
- 回复 讲理
- 1.1. 是啊，这不恰恰证明了我的说法？争强好胜，方法欠当吗？，“这帮匪徒已经把其他汽车逼走了，就这辆路虎还在”，既然“我想...他对这些匪徒能干什么一定非常清楚”，既然如此，退避三舍犹恐不及,为何独他不早早“被逼走”？从而脱离是非之地，先息事宁人，再报告警察，为何还在现场与歹徒纠缠，非要等到对方换道截停事态恶化之后？
正义感: 很高兴你提到“逻辑”两个字，因为你的确没有逻辑。
1. 逻辑差一： 仅仅从一个追尾事故，如何知道对方要置你于死地？
现在主要罪犯已经被捕，据交代，这是起故 ...
1.2. “他们要给他一点颜色看看，所以正确判断这帮匪徒要置他与死地”。可这是美国啊，光天化日之下，就大胆假设，瞎猜吧，“一点颜色看看” = “置他与死地”？还叫“正确判断”？贻笑大方了。
2. 你没有自己的观点，人云亦云，只把被别人的话有所取舍地拿来当真理。为何不引用其他人的观点？
3. 其他我就犯不上浪费时间多费口舌了，什么“感到妻子和孩子受到严重威胁”啦，可后来事实不是只他被暴打之外，并未伤及妻儿吗？为何还这么“感觉”？美国并非荒蛮之地，对方违法未必该死，对方霸道未必无情，这不明显是反应过度吗？难道不是“颠倒是非”吗？要是靠感觉，不知世上还有多少人死于非命。
4. 你认为心不够狠，你是否认为50彪形大汉匪徒已经够心狠，只是还没开枪扔炸弹，把车炸烂，人车俱毁而已，就是因为“几千磅的路虎还斗不过摩托车？”，果真有逻辑啊！
我估计你年令也不小了，为何竟然和他一样争强好胜，像他这么较劲，惹火烧身，看来这个被暴打的结果也就是必然的了。
我说自己语言刻薄是因为我说了你“可能”“逻辑太差”，有点讽刺之意，虽有“可能”二字，但仍感到过意不去了，特别是看了你的《不要让感情替代你的理智，不要以诋毁别人来损伤你的人格》一文？还说什么“我从不赞成诋毁，贬低和骂人”，所以我觉得其实是应当更加礼貌一些的。而你却继续打棍子，扣帽子，说我“的确没有逻辑”，“虚伪”，“颠倒是非”，而且语气肯定。数一数，看你给我扣了几顶帽子了？ 还断章取义地多次重复提到我说的“好奇的停下来看一下”，掐头去尾；还多次无中生有，强加于人，栽赃陷害，说我希望“等警察来收尸”，这个罪名从何而来？事情有这么复杂吗？我不就是认为他的做法有欠妥当，应当及早规避危险，以柔克刚，化解危机，这才是对家人负责啊，而不是争强好胜，得理不让，激怒歹徒，造成事态恶化。
你要是再不顾事实，避实就虚，答非所问，胡搅蛮缠，我就按照你说的：“Never Argue With An Idiot. He’ll Drag You Down To His Level And Then Beat You With Experience.
- Sorry！！！
- 回复 正义感
- 我还说过不要以为先说别人“ Idiot”就以为自己就不是“ Idiot”了。我之所以跟大多数人的想法一样是因为我们有common sense，你也可能知道你是少数几个同情匪徒的。
讲理: 1.1. 是啊，这不恰恰证明了我的说法？争强好胜，方法欠当吗？，“这帮匪徒已经把其他汽车逼走了，就这辆路虎还在”，既然“我想...他对这些匪徒能干什么一定非常 ...
其实像你这种人不只是一个，但肯定是极少数，看看下面yahoo讨论的例子，那个Hola就是你这样的人物，可幸的是他是唯一的一个：以下这个例子我没有做任何加工：
Will 1 day ago
From the Boston Herald: Edwin Mieses has a six-page criminal record that began at age 12 with a negligent driving charge and includes jail time for drugs, guns, resisting arrest and other convictions, according to court records.
Edwin Mieses, 32, never got a driver’s license in the Bay State, the Registry of Motor Vehicles said, but he was frequently nabbed behind the wheel, and even sentenced to jail for driving without a license, court records show. Mieses has a pending case out of Lawrence District Court for driving suspended, subsequent offense, said Carrie Kimball Monihan, spokeswoman for the Essex County District Attorney’s Office. Mieses also has 15 guilty findings for criminal offenses including distribution of cocaine, possession of a firearm without a permit, knowingly receiving stolen property, resisting arrest and several motor vehicle violations, court records show.
Mieses was sentenced to jail in 2004 for distribution of cocaine, in 2001 for operating without a license, in 2000 for possession of a firearm, and in 1999 for possession of marijuana, receiving stolen property, destruction of property and attaching plates, according to court records.
Collapse Replies (35) Reply
PRIVATE CITIZEN X 1 day ago
2
20
you got point! keep telling the truth & maybe justice will come of it. keep up the good work.
PRIVATE CITIZEN X 1 day ago
1
19
that's a big rap sheet.
More
Hola 1 day ago
73
1
The bikers were within the right to beat the #$%$ out of the driver. Just because he was afraid is no excuse for running over the victim. They are now even. Just call it the day.
Crocodile 1 day ago
2
32
Hola - evidently, they were NOT within their right to beat the .)c-(r.)(ap) out of that guy. Otherwise they would not be in police custody and others being searched for by the police. Maybe you think it's ok, and I would say that would make you a bully yourself. Large gangs of people beating up some dude in front of his wife and child? Not ok in this universe. Thank God. I hope it never becomes ok.
Funkstylz 1 day ago
2
28
Not only did they beat him up, one of the guys slashed him....what a piece of #$%$.
RB 1 day ago
3
27
OMG- I bet he was just turning his life around! He was an aspiring rapper too.....
A62 1 day ago
3
29
Those were not "bikers", they were crotchers. They are the imbeciles that do wheelies at 90 and are very stupid. They give Bikers a bad rep. Hola, tough boy. NOT. Call it a day, loser.
Xiangba 1 day ago
4
28
@Hola, I am pretty sure you are one of them.
Hola 1 day ago
59
3
@crocodile: The SUV driver run over someone, and fled the scene. The bikers chased him because of that. Once they got their hands on him, emotions took over. So what, the driver was afraid. That does not excuse running someone over.
Hola 1 day ago
49
2
@xiangba: No, I don't ride bikes. Just because someone is afraid does not give them the right to run over someone and not suffer the consequences of their actions. In this case, the bikers beats his #$%$.
clint 1 day ago
0
5
Crunch..
1uglybzzrd 23 hours ago
1
7
All I can to say to Hola, I hope some day tat is your daughter they beat like that
More
Xiangba 23 hours ago
2
11
@ Hola, you are right that if "someone is afraid does not give them the right to run over someone", but if someone family's life is threatened, that gives him full right to run over anyone who threat him. Just simple like that.
Mort 23 hours ago
1
17
Hola, Of course it is. If I am in my truck and a group of 30 people surround my truck and start kicking it, banging on my windows, and threatening me and my family, I will protect myself with what weapon I have available. This guy only had one weapon in which to protect his family... a 3500 lb self propelled battering ram.
If anything this guy was too nice becaus ehe didn't want to hurt anyone. I'd have used that vehicle as a pinball flipper and swatter every biker that tried to get around me. ESPECIALLY after I realized that they were stopping cars in front of me to try to trap me. There would ahve been more than a couple of bikers in hte hospital if that was what was needed to protect myself and my family.
Crocodile 23 hours ago
1
12
Hola, keep trying to convince people of that. But people tend to believe what they see with their own eyes on the video. Not what some internet idiot named Hola tells them to believe.
HammerBama 23 hours ago
4
11
Hey Hola-guess how many thumbs up you have. Ready? NONE!
Ron 23 hours ago
1
9
@Hola...since the bikers had him boxed in after THEY caused the accident and were slashing his tires and banging on his car....what do you suppose would have been a better idea? If that was me..when I got to the traffic I would have thrown it in reverse and started backing over them to get away....
Xiangba 23 hours ago
0
9
@Hola, when I say you are one of them, I do not mean you are one of the bikers, but you are definitely one of the same mentality as theirs.
JustMakingAnObservation 23 hours ago
0
6
This man had every right to defend himself and defend his family with whatever means necessary. If this had happened to me I would have done the same thing except I would have run over anyone who tried to attack me.
JustMakingAnObservation 23 hours ago
0
5
The rider that got bumped (the one who caused that to happen in the first place) should have called the police but did not. Why? because this whole thing was his intent in the first place. Anyone who intentionally causes another vehicle to hit their vehicle in this manner is obviously trying to start something.
Hola 23 hours ago
12
0
I am surrounded by people all the time in traffic. In some cases I get boxed in. The guy was afraid. So what....that does not give him the right to run over someone. I'm sorry, but I believe he deserved to get his #$%$ beat for running over someone.
Xiangba 23 hours ago
0
4
@Hola, if you did the same to my family, I would run over you for sure, plus, I would run over anyone who were with you to threat my family life.
Xiangba 23 hours ago
0
6
@Hola, no, you and your gang friends would be the ones who would stay in your bed for your next entire life.
Ron 23 hours ago
0
6
Yeah except he wasn't just surrounded...he was being attacked...what part of that aren't you seeing?
Xiangba 23 hours ago
0
6
Thanks God, one thug was removed from street forever!
Michael Vick's dog 23 hours ago
0
6
Hola, I just have to say, that you sound like one of the dumbest people on the face of the earth. I dare say, that you are probably in the bottom .001% of people that have EVER breathed in air. There are coma patients that exhibit higher levels of thinking than you do.
juda 22 hours ago
0
4
HOLA. You forget an important point. The bikers were riding illegally without a permit in an area they needed a permit for that many bikes. The SUV driver did not intentionally run them over ----he was just trying to get away and they were all over the place, front, back, sides and in all lanes you jerk!!! Too bad he didn't get more.
k p 22 hours ago
0
3
@Hola to quote a movie ........
"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
You can't possibly believe the stuff you're shoveling?
Either that or you live with your mother and have no family to protect.
Hola 22 hours ago
7
0
@juda: He was afraid. People who are afraid do stupid things. He run over a human being. I'm glad he and his family is safe, but I'm also glad he got his #$%$ beat. The #$%$ beating is his punishment for running over someone.
Xiangba 22 hours ago
0
1
@Hola, you conveniently forget he also removed a thug like you from street.
Harley 21 hours ago
0
2
@Hola...no..nobody ever has the right to gang up on someone and try to kill them.
More
Nobody Special 21 hours ago
0
1
The officers who took part in this "ride" should all be fired. They were with known criminals who were breaking the law ( they were breaking traffic laws at a minimum). They were there on their own time and not part of any investigation, which means they had no business being there. It is bad enough the criminals are allowed to roam the streets. It is even worse when those who are supposed to protect us are one of them. The only reason these officers came forward is they were afraid they would be caught. Whomever lives in this area should demand their immediate dismissal.
Michael Vick's dog 20 hours ago
0
1
Hola, you're coming off as a total moron.
Crocodile 19 hours ago
0
1
lol @ Hola, the internet tough guy. Talking about other people getting their azzes kicked. I bet he has little bitty skinny bird legs and a sunk in pigeon chest - or else he's fat as Louie Anderson. His type always do.
A62 14 hours ago
0
0
Hola, let me be crystal clear, If that had been me, when that punk smashed my window with his helmet, there would have been .357 hollows coming at them, I'd worry about the fallout later. I hate people that are real brave with a mob, but cowards alone.
- 回复 讲理
- 看，又来了，帽子越扣越大，这一次升级为“同情匪徒”了，上一次说我“希望等警察来收尸”，下一次就该升级为“同伙”了，接着就该判刑了，真是攻击一点不计其余啊，文革也没这样啊，我态度已明，还要我再重复一遍吗？“变道挡路家伙不知死活，罪该万死”，“我也庆幸死的不是个好人，甚至有点为民除害的感觉”。“我也一直看不惯这些不务正业摩托党之类，甚至认为政府应当立法取缔。”，“摩托党违法乱纪，扰乱治安，需要严惩不贷。”，这些怎么理解成“同情”啊？这个罪名从何而来？就这理解能力？你是真不理解还是装糊涂啊？断章取义？ 为何不一一反驳我的观点？看来你似乎已无力应对，故已无自己的语言，只能重复别人的话；你已无自己的思想，故人云亦云。既然如此，到此打住，停战言和吧，伙计，我已经说过，为此我已有好几次没有回复。可你不依不饶。
正义感: 我还说过不要以为先说别人“ Idiot”就以为自己就不是“ Idiot”了。我之所以跟大多数人的想法一样是因为我们有common sense，你也可能知道你是少数几个同情匪徒 ...
事情有这么复杂吗？我只不过就是认为他的做法有欠妥当，应当及早规避危险？以柔克刚，化解危机，而不是针锋相对，争强好胜，以卵击石。
这还不至于“罪当该诛”吧？ 这次向你学习，也给你个链接，请上咱们村友翰山网页看看：http://www.backchina.com/blog/250969/article-188230.html，大家几乎异口同声：“碰到这种情况怎么办？一定要躲，一定要让，那绝不是逞强和讲理的时间和地方”，“能躲就躲”，“躲远点”， 意见与我的高度一致，更有认为“是扰乱治安，但还不是流氓团伙，还真不是故意寻衅的，不然，...”，“目的是逼停SUV, 把车道都占住，以便尽情地表演、玩特技”，“如果及时停下，也不会有后面的暴力，及夺路而逃撞人致残”. .对这些我目前还难以置评。好了，如果现在你还想争的话，建议最好到这里去争吧。也许还要给我一次升级判决吧，那我就静等。 。
- 回复 正义感
- 我把你最早的帖子给你看看，你是说为保家人的路虎驾驶员“杀人”犯，同情那个被压非法驾车的匪徒的是“受害者”，幸好你还没有删：
讲理: 看，又来了，帽子越扣越大，这一次升级为“同情匪徒”了，上一次说我“希望等警察来收尸”，下一次就该升级为“同伙”了，接着就该判刑了，真是攻击一点不计其余 ...
“我看了视频，请问，轧死的受害者是那个变道挡路的脑残吗？另外别人的非法行为并不能证明自己杀人合理”。
再看看你现在讲什么：
“我只不过就是认为他的做法有欠妥当，应当及早规避危险？以柔克刚，化解危机，而不是针锋相对，争强好胜，以卵击石“。
如果你开始就这么说我们还会有这个争论吗？你是怎样的人你自己定义吧！
- 回复 讲理
- 是啊，说你“攻击一点不计其余”，看来一点也不委屈，你再往下看看我后面的帖子：“现在是生不如死，好，就算是伤人致残，用’死‘不当。...”，好吧，我即使用词不慎，“死”字有误，（并已更正），然而意思可见，并未因这一字之差而改变我的整个论点原意啊，
正义感: 我把你最早的帖子给你看看，你是说为保家人的路虎驾驶员“杀人”犯，同情那个被压非法驾车的匪徒的是“受害者”，幸好你还没有删：
“我看了视频，请问，轧死的 ...
我论的不是撞死还是撞残，而是行为是否妥当，与对方死活没关系，是死是活对他的行为的定性没影响，绝不会因为是撞死还是撞残来决定其行为是否妥当。
况且在后面的跟帖不是反复表明了吗？我还是认为他的“做法有欠妥当”，还是“应当及早规避危险”（早点停车让路），这与“别人的非法行为并不能证明自己的行为（或杀人或伤人）合理”妥当。 两点前后并不矛盾啊。没有争论的必要啊。
可你却借题发挥，避实就虚，转移话题，因我一字不慎就无限引申，任意曲解，上纲上线，把争论引向别处，不顾我后来的反复强调说明，只是自说自话，打棍子，扣帽子，逐步升级，要是赶上文革，我就难免牢狱之灾了啊。
现在你似乎也态度缓和了，认同了这个观点，是因为看到多数村友态度高度一致，肯定不是“极少数”了，这种认同到头来不免还是“人云亦云”。
所以就开始推卸责任了。而这之前，你的观点明白无误，“他还心不够狠。如果他心狠他可以把所有的匪徒都碾过”，你一直认为他是家人面临“威胁”的情况下的合理行为，认为“他判断正确，救了全家”，要是这样，我们怎么会没有“这个争论”呢？ 怎会我一字不慎而大打出手？难道我们的观点不同只在于一字之差，如果我当时没有把“残”字不慎写成“死”字，就不“会有这个争论”了？这可能避免吗？
好了，“一棋不慎全盘皆输”：SUV是一时冲动大祸临头，看来我是“一句不慎引起大战啊”！ 再看看你自己的帖子吧，- 我希望你也别删了。现在还给你这句话：“你是什么你自己定义吧” 。
我不怪你，这是时代造成的，不是一时可以改的。我判断你的年龄段就是根据你的文风特点和语言习惯这些时代痕迹。
- 回复 正义感
- Bottom line, 从你的帖子可以看出你一开始认为路虎是杀人，而且滥杀无辜，而被压者是无辜者，得到你的同情。我认为这些人故意挑事，路虎自卫，这个被压的咎由自取。这就是争论的焦点和起点。只是在事实面前证明了他们是一伙劣迹斑斑的匪徒是他们肇事后你才转移讨论中心至“是否应该跟他们对峙”这个主题来的。以下都是你说的，还有些你自己可以再去回顾下。
讲理: 是啊，说你“攻击一点不计其余”，看来一点也不委屈，你再往下看看我后面的帖子：“现在是生不如死，好，就算是伤人致残，用’死‘不当。...”，好吧，我即使用 ...
“我看了视频，请问，轧死的受害者是那个变道挡路的脑残吗？另外别人的非法行为并不能证明自己杀人合理”。
“我连好奇地停下来看一下就得付出生命的代价”，“不要以任何貌似“正确”的借口或幻想一种假设情况来”正当”防卫，”合理“伤人（或杀人）”
“知道了他的劣迹之后，我也庆幸死的不是个好人”，
这些话不是我编的，也不是我强加于你的，你承认不承认也无所谓。
- 回复 讲理
- 看！果然不出所料，棍子又来了，帽子满天飞，时代特点嘛，这是改不了的。我认为我所表达的观点与死伤关系不大所以才忽略“死”“残”之分，而误用“杀”字，而且后来已改过来，这个一字之误也是很正常的，何必抓住不放？何来“认为路虎是杀人，而且滥杀无辜”的结论？
正义感: Bottom line, 从你的帖子可以看出你一开始认为路虎是杀人，而且滥杀无辜，而被压者是无辜者，得到你的同情。我认为这些人故意挑事，路虎自卫，这个被压的咎由自 ...
我是针对有人因为对方违法，便得出撞人合理这个荒谬的逻辑。于是才有了这个跟帖：“我看了视频，请问，轧死的受害者是那个变道挡路的脑残吗？另外别人的非法行为并不能证明自己撞人（伤人或杀人）合理”。这句话，除了“杀”字误用之外，有什么错？我至今还是这么认为：（1）. 对方违法，（2）. 应对失当。 杀人有蓄意杀人和误杀，伤人有故意伤人和误伤，我从未说撞人故意，事实上他本人和太太也不认为撞人合理，更不是因为事先知道对方劣迹斑斑才故意撞伤，“艾利先并非有意伤人，只是想维护妻女安全”，而是试图加速冲出重围，夺路而逃，意外撞到一名机车骑士，并对伤者表示同情。所以我说“好奇地停下来看一下“，绝对有这种可能。 就你坚持是因为生命受到“威胁”，故意撞人致残，而且还嫌少了，认为是“他还心不够狠。如果他心狠他可以把所有的匪徒都碾过”，事实上他不仅心不够狠，甚至压根没打算撞人，只是情急之下，致使误撞误伤而已。所以我才说，属于反应过度，有欠妥当。
至于对方好坏，是死是活与他的行为本身妥当与否没有关系。尽管我认为他处理不当，但确实在“知道了对方的劣迹之后，我也庆幸死的不是个好人”，歪打正着，现在还这样认为，却仍然认为当死的更应是换道挡路的家伙，“罪该万死”，何来“同情”？推理出“你一开始认为路虎是杀人，而且滥杀无辜，而被压者是无辜者，得到你的同情”这个结论？又承蒙你给我立场定位？“罪该万死” = “同情”？
12