It still doesn't justify the attack, so I fail to see how it is material. If you thought that (for example) breaking into someone's house justified weeks of torture, then the "breaking into someone's house" part would be relevant. If it doesn't than it's a detail with little importance. There may be some importance in a trial or at sentencing, but this is not a court, and you a not a judge holding sway over his ex-girlfriend's punishment/future.
"So I ran into this guy in a totally dark house, and before I know it I'm strapped to this chair"... what led to something does matter when evaluating sympathy or Schadenfreude. Which is what I actually said in my first post, "for me to care". I haven't been given enough information to get upset on behalf of this guy I never met -- sorry. And I actually don't think what interests me here would interest in court; so?
None of us are judges, now that you mention it. So if there is no use in asking questions, what is the use of accepting it at face value? What, exactly, are we convening here for, as it were?
| what led to something does matter when
| evaluating sympathy or Schadenfreude
Even though you say that breaking and entering doesn't justify weeks of torture, your other statements don't back that up. If you think that nothing deserves weeks of torture, then why do you even need that information to evaluate it (to care)?
