Great guns, General Zaroff, what you speak of is murder”(Conell). The statement shows that Rainsford thoughts on hunting are beginning to change. It changes even more when Rainsford becomes the hunted and begins to realize how the animal feels. Rainsford now must stop the general to save the lives of many in the future. Rainsford in the beginning had no sympathy for the hunted and seemed like a cruel man.
If he had a sane mind, he would not kill sailors just for being “the scum of the earth”. He became so insane he made this a game. By making it a game, it was more tolerable for him to kill a human being. While in reality, only someone really insane would do this. He soon became addicted to this that it became a never ending cycle until Rainsford ended it.
Because he kept going back and forth about killing him, and he kept on stating reasons why he should and shouldn’t kill him. I thought that he would kill him because there we’re more and better reasons why he should then shouldn’t. The main thing that the story left me with is that did the barber kill Torres or Torres kills the barber. Because I would think that if Torres found out that the barber was his enemy (a rebel) he would kill him sooner or later. And did Torres ever trust the barber after, or were they always going to be enemies.
As people state “to take a life when a life is lost is revenge, not justice”. This suggests there is no humanity in the area, as everyone just wants vengeance. While many argue this is where theory of deterrence comes in. But they should answer the main question, how are people able to amend by witnessing wrong? Instead it brutalises the society and increases murder rates.
First, (I would probably say in the first book that is about survival instead of first because the secondly part doesn’t make sense in the next paragraph) “The Most Dangerous Game” tells a story about one man named General Zaroff hunting another human by the name of Mr. Sanger Rainsford. As General Zaroff states, “It must have courage, cunning, and, above all it must be able to reason,”(p.75). This quote from the story implies that General Zaroff likes to hunt humans. (From this quote I didn’t get that he was talking about humans so instead of saying implies you might want to something like this quote from the story is referring to him hunting humans) Rainsford says “But you can’t mean(does there need to be a question mark here),”(p.75). At this point, Rainsford realizes he is sitting prey for General Zaroff.
The third reason is because he made the wrong, yet right decision. I state this because in the end the good side won. Jekyll killed himself so society wouldn't suffer to mr Hyde anymore. Asa in the end of the novel the mixture was not working any longer. He may have to be Mr.Hyde forever.
This in comparison to what they did to Carl Lee’s daughter, Tonya, which was torture, was in no way the same. These men committed a crime out of hate, which differs from Carl Lee’s actions. Carl Lee murdered these men for what they did to his daughter. He did to them what he found they deserved. Carl Lee was a hardworking man,
The first example is that Oedipus’ anger helps show how ignorant Oedipus is and how he even makes false accusations towards others. Oedipus sent Creon to find the city’s seer, Tiresias, and Oedipus then asked Tiresias who killed the previous king. Tiresias would not give Oedipus a valid answer and Oedipus grew angry. “Indeed, since I am so angry, I’ll pass over none/ of what I understand. Know that I think/ you, too, had your hand in this deed and did it,/ even though you did not kill with your own hands./ But if you could see, I would think the deed yours alone” (l. 364-368).
Although this does not prove that Cromwell was a villain, it does prove he was a hypocrite as closing parliament was one of the main reasons that Charles 1st was executed. Oliver closed parliament because he couldn’t achieve an effective working relationship with successive parliament. Cromwell was one of the people on the jury which tried Charles 1st after the second Civil war. This jury sentenced Charles 1st to death, which makes Cromwell indirectly guilty of regicide (the murder of a monarch). Some people could also argue that this is also homicide which, although it is true, is not quite as serious because Cromwell had already killed many in battle and sentenced other people as part of a parliament.