Comment by mynameisvlad
5 years ago
If your goal is to apologize, you don’t need to justify your actions. That’s what people are criticizing.
5 years ago
If your goal is to apologize, you don’t need to justify your actions. That’s what people are criticizing.
So then you agree or disagree, in the specific example, of someone responding in self defense, as opposed to stabbing someone for no reason?
You think these 2 actions are the same, or is it that 1 situation is probably not as bad?
This is not an argument in good faith and you know it. We aren't talking about these hypothetical situations and my opinions on them, we're talking about what makes an apology an apology.
Kindly take your sealioning elsewhere.
> we're talking about what makes an apology an apology.
Ok, and in the situation of the stabbing/assault, you really think it would be unreasonable for someone to point out that they got attacked first?
That does not seem unreasonable. If someone got attacked, and then responded with too much force, it would still be reasonable to point out that someone got attacked first, while also saying that attacking back with too much force was bad.
In the case of someone getting attacked first, it is both OK to point that out, and also say that the response was over the top.
If you disagree then you are basically saying that attacking someone unprovoked is equivalently bad as to attacking someone in response to an attack.
And I am not sure why you don't recognize the importance of also pointing out that an attack was in response to another attack.
That seems pretty important to point out.
It is pretty reasonable to both recognize that something went too far, while also explaining that there was a cause to it, and that it was in response to another attack.