3 ms·
Except that's not what they said, there's plenty of context in both their statement and this entire thread you're willfully ignoring to make that leap.
by newnewpdro 8y ago
Except that's not what they said, there's plenty of context in both their statement and this entire thread you're willfully ignoring to make that leap.
- PhasmaFelis 8y agoWhich context is that? Dokem thinks that getting to read about a heist is more "interesting" than having historical objects available for public viewing. The only other person who agrees with him offers no reason except that it's "hilarious." Do you think the historical value doesn't count because it was on public display at a church instead of a museum? Or because it was on loan from a private (royal) collection? Or just that it's okay to rob historical displays as long as it entertains you? I don't understand your argument.
- newnewpdro 8y agoI don't understand yours. You're turning Dokem's specific comment about a museum heist into some kind of general attitude towards all crime being ok provided it's interesting. The article clearly states nobody was hurt in the heist, there's no violence in this particular situation whatsoever and you're pulling in terrorists flying planes into skyscrapers.
- PhasmaFelis 8y agoDid you miss that Dokem's comment started "I hope they get away with it", or are you endorsing that part too?
- newnewpdro 8y agoI haven't endorsed anything, you're being ridiculous.
- stale2002 8y agoYes. I WOULD say that a crazy heist is more "interesting" than having them on public display. And yes, it IS "hilarious". Our modern entertainment is filled will movies, ect about crazy heists. Crazy crimes can also be funny an entertaining. And nobody's feelings are being hurt because people think it is interesting.
- PhasmaFelis 8y agoOkay, so you're actually doubling down on "robbery is awesome as long as it entertains me, like the movies." Sounds like we understand each other, then!