What the heck was his problem?
Irish genes
Ryan O'Neill or the actual character?
>>222131250He was Irish
I was seething when barry lost that last duel
>>222131250Dumb Mick.
Irish & autistic is a kino albeit schizo combo
He was too based for this world
>>222132190He failed because he tried to act like a gentleman. Had he killed Bullington he'd have been set for life.
>>222131250What problem?
>>222133610>Had he killed Bullington he'd have been set for lifeit wouldn't be long before they'd lose the estate to debtors if he'd killed bullington and ended up in the gutter. he lost a leg but at least he was guaranteed £500 a year for life this way
>makes amoral decisions his whole life in pursuit of power, wealth, and status>finally makes the moral decision to not kill the only remaining child of his estranged wife>suffers for itThis is why its in my top 5 movies of all time, that and that its beautiful
>>222133746The estate had enough to pay the debtors and give him that 500 pounds a year for life.
>>222131250He just wanted to fuck his hot cousin, but the world wouldn't let him.
>>222131250he's a bong. bongs are violent and retarded subhumans
>>222134076Barry isn't a bong, he's a filthy mick.
>>222134142a distinction without a difference
>>222134179That's not true, no one thinks that micks are bongs. They're different peoples, and have been for hundreds of years.
>>222133610>Had he killed Bullington he'd have been set for life.His reputation would have been ruined for killing his step-son and he would have spent his remaining days rotting in prison.
>>222134243>peoplelol no they aren't
>>222134446It was a duel initiated by Bullington
Why did they kiss?
>>222133816>finally makes the moral decisionThat's why the movie sucks and proves that Kubrick didn't understand the novel. It makes no sense for Barry to suddenly grow a conscience.
>>222134459Who started it is irrelevant if the outcome is killing his own son. Murder is still, in fact, illegal.
>>222131250Why couldn't he just coast? Whyd he screw up a good situation?
>>222134527Irish
>>222133816Yep. Doesn't pay to grow a conscience at the last second, sadly.
>>222134493If a boxing match resulted in Mike Tyson killing his opponent it would be homicide not murder. Redmond killing his stepson was a lawful homicide not a murder.
>>222134592Not equivalent. Dueling was never legal; it was only tolerated unofficially. Killing someone in a duel is still murder by law. Why do you think Redmond flees when he thinks he's killed Quinn? And it would be especially scandalous if the duel resulted in the killing of one's own family.
>>222134660You're treating illegal and murder as the same thing. A duel was a consensual fight where both parties accepted the risk of death. It could still be illegal, but that doesn't automatically make the winner a murderer. Barry fled after Quinn because he thought he'd killed a high ranking English officer while being an Mick peasant, he had every reason to expect severe consequences regardless of whether the death would legally be treated as murder.
>>222134720Would your autism be pleased if I used the term "manslaughter" instead? (Which is still illegal btw and doesn't change the point that it would have ruined his reputation.)
>>222131250he was very american coded
>>222134449swarthy hands typed these posts
>>222134775You keep moving the goalposts. First it was "murder," now it's "manslaughter," because you realized those aren't the same thing. You not understanding that words have actual legal meanings doesn't make you not autistic, it makes you a retard."Illegal" doesn't automatically equal "murder." Plenty of unlawful killings aren't murder. Dueling was a legally messy area that varied by jurisdiction and era, which is exactly why reducing it to "it's murder because it's illegal" is historically illiterate.
>>222134468Didn't want to die a KHV
>>222134914I'm white, bongistani>>222134799he was a bong, retardo
>>222134938>"it's murder because it's illegal" is historically illiterate.I agree and I never said this. You're the one who's illiterate, pal.
>>222134938>Reddit spacing
>>222135499You literally argued that because dueling was illegal, killing someone in one was still "murder by law." That's exactly the premise I'm challenging. If you want to retreat to "I meant manslaughter," fine, but that means your original argument was wrong.
>>222135549>You literally argued that because dueling was illegal, killing someone in one was still "murder by law."No, I said dueling is illegal and it's murder. You're the one who has inserted the word "because". I brought up the legality because you made a retarded analogy about boxing, which is a legal sport and an accidental death caused by a boxing match would never be considered murder. Or are you suggesting that two guys planning and agreeing to shoot each other wouldn't get a murder charge? This is a very simple exercise in logic, so I don't know why you're having such a hard time following it.
