You're still peddling bullshit.
If harm is 'relative', then it makes even less sense for you to claim that Colby Covington went unharmed.
'at some point harm becomes...' It's relative, remember? That makes it impossible for you to accurately assess whether he was actually harmed.
'is there no minor...' You can take that up with the Australian police. Ask them whether they charge people for flicking somebody's ear. I have no idea whether they do or not, but I know they charge people for punching them in the face and hitting them with a boomerang. This case proves it.
Now you're just being purposely daft.
If harm is relative then that doesn't weaken my argument as I specificly said that it has to be contextualised. I'll repeat, they are both cage fighters, they have training sessions daily which involves a higher level of bodily harm. That's not to say that they are killing themselves in the gym, but that the outcome of what happened between them was so miniscule that compared to their day to day, it's nothing. Considering that, it's fair to assume that the harm done was insignicantly minor, especially as there was no permanent damage done. Not to mention how the whole thing was instigated.
Lol at trying to turn the reality of intepretation into complete relativity. Just another example of how you're an extremist that can't rationalise. I know it's a far out idea, but human beings have the ability to go on case by case basis.
Except I didn't. Reading is not as difficult as you make it out to be. What I asserted is that there is no evidence to support Werdum's claims. If Colby threw the first strike, then Werdum should absolutely file charges against him.
You CLEARLY insinuated it.
So, a former HW champion of the world should file assualt charges for a legkick by a guy half his size, which didn't hurt him in any meaningful way at all, in a situation which he himself was a willing participant AND threw something back at said person?
People in my part of the world don't understand that line of thinking. I honestly can't see how that's a reasonable thing to do.
That's the logic of a mental midget. You hear the same defense used in cases of domestic violence, where the larger and much stronger partner is accused of attacking the other. 'Your Honor, if I really wanted to hurt them 'for real', I could have.'
Again, you can't differentiate between domestic abuse and the Werdum vs Colby situation. You again and again show a complete lack of the ability to assess a situation.
