which would you be more wary of...

[butters]

...as an opponent:

the person with nothing left to lose?

or the person with everything to lose?

a hypothetical question, naturally, but one that's driving me slightly nuts the past 2 days.


the person with nothing left to lose might not have any caution left to throw to the wind and, as such, be wildly unpredictable

the person whose actions are crucial to save all they hold dear is more likely to act with caution and will be relentless


which would you rather face as a foe?

 

[Islander55]

The person with nothing left to lose is the more dangerous since they may not mind dying in order to do you in. The person with things to lose would be more cautious and perhaps be welling to cede some of their things to protect other things.

 

[butters]

The person with nothing left to lose is the more dangerous since they may not mind dying in order to do you in. The person with things to lose would be more cautious and perhaps be welling to cede some of their things to protect other things.

but the person with everything to lose (loved ones, especially) may be willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to protect them. most parents will understand that.

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

Be a lover, not a fighter. That way you can kill them in their sleep.

 

[rae121452]

the person with nothing left to lose would be the most dangerous, i think.

 

[silver gurl]

Yep. The person with nothing left to lose

 

[Saint_Ann]

No such thing as a person with nothing to lose.

 

[Tryharder62]

Yep, the person with nothing left to lose. That's why some of the prisons with lifers with no possibility of parole and death row inmates are tough. Kill someone while you're on death row - what are they going to do sentence you to death?

The person with everything to lose has a chip in their armor. Threaten what they love and they will do whatever you want.

 

[Lazaran]

.

I think you answered your own question.

In real life they're both equally dangerous for different reasons.

If you count a suicide bomber as someone with nothing to lose, I would say it doesn't get more dangerous than that. On the other hand, if you consider a rich country's drone operator with Hellfire missiles at their command as someone with everything to lose, I would say it doesn't get more dangerous than that either.

If you set some parameters, like an unarmed fight to the death in a cage match, I would rather fight the person with nothing to lose because they're already half beaten.

 

[Comshaw]

While the one with everything to lose will be relentless because they have much to lose, they are also predictable. That's an edge that can be used. The person with everything to lose have several restrictive parameters to deal with: they want to get your ass, but they have to do so while preserving what they have and do it in a manner where they will never be caught. Otherwise, they lose what they are trying to retain.

That narrows what they can do and how they can do it, which allows you to watch for and plan for those attacks, allows you to plan for a counter strike to eliminate the threat.

On the other side, a person who has nothing to lose is unpredictable and has no restrictions at all. They can come at you at any time in multiple ways. They are not concerned with preserving anything. the only thing they have in mind is getting your ass.

Yea, I'd much rather face a foe that I could plan for, predict their moves, over one you can't.


Comshaw

 

[oneblueye]

hey ...

...as an opponent:

the person with nothing left to lose?

or the person with everything to lose?

a hypothetical question, naturally, but one that's driving me slightly nuts the past 2 days.


the person with nothing left to lose might not have any caution left to throw to the wind and, as such, be wildly unpredictable

the person whose actions are crucial to save all they hold dear is more likely to act with caution and will be relentless


which would you rather face as a foe?

I have faced them --, they are the same person.
In their rage and their fear they make the same mistakes and take the same gambits.

 

[Dribble]

nothing to lose. By far. History has proven this over and over. There is a podcast out there called The Fall of Civilizations. It should be required watching for all Americans.

 

[LLCox]

When it comes to having to shoot someone women get the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. An old person with a concealed weapon is very dangerous. All they have to say is they were afraid for their life because they are old and couldn't run or defend them self any other way. The perp could not tell another story because... he is dead.

 

[butters]

the person with nothing left to lose would be the most dangerous, i think.

i suppose it always depends on the individual, but i see the recklessness of that one as a possible weakness to exploit in a situation. they expect to die, so take less care about defending themself and lay themselves open to the opponent

Yep. The person with nothing left to lose

i know that is the general expectation. it was mine, till my damned brain started weighing in on the thing instead of minding its own business

Yep, the person with nothing left to lose. That's why some of the prisons with lifers with no possibility of parole and death row inmates are tough. Kill someone while you're on death row - what are they going to do sentence you to death?

The person with everything to lose has a chip in their armor. Threaten what they love and they will do whatever you want.

hmmn, i know what you're saying, but if the person doing the protecting is in the way of the attacker--the only thing between their loved ones and death--wouldn't they be as accepting of death if it means saving them? so long as they killed the other one in the process?

.

I think you answered your own question.

In real life they're both equally dangerous for different reasons.

If you count a suicide bomber as someone with nothing to lose, I would say it doesn't get more dangerous than that. On the other hand, if you consider a rich country's drone operator with Hellfire missiles at their command as someone with everything to lose, I would say it doesn't get more dangerous than that either.

If you set some parameters, like an unarmed fight to the death in a cage match, I would rather fight the person with nothing to lose because they're already half beaten.

i think you may be right again, as always, these things depend on the individuals involved. it really was just a hypothetical that was nagging at me.

While the one with everything to lose will be relentless because they have much to lose, they are also predictable. That's an edge that can be used. The person with everything to lose have several restrictive parameters to deal with: they want to get your ass, but they have to do so while preserving what they have and do it in a manner where they will never be caught. Otherwise, they lose what they are trying to retain.

That narrows what they can do and how they can do it, which allows you to watch for and plan for those attacks, allows you to plan for a counter strike to eliminate the threat.

On the other side, a person who has nothing to lose is unpredictable and has no restrictions at all. They can come at you at any time in multiple ways. They are not concerned with preserving anything. the only thing they have in mind is getting your ass.

Yea, I'd much rather face a foe that I could plan for, predict their moves, over one you can't.


Comshaw

they may be quite willing (and accepting) that their own life is likely lost but understand it's the price to pay. and caution makes for a clearer head, maybe, allowing them to plan and think. the unpredictability of the other is certainly frightening but, as i said earlier, it might leave them more open to exposing themselves.

then again, i think both would be something i'd rather never have to face

I have faced them --, they are the same person.
In their rage and their fear they make the same mistakes and take the same gambits.

ah, interesting reply. thankyou! hypothetically, this is the one i'm deciding is the truest (non-cinematic) version of reality

nothing to lose. By far. History has proven this over and over. There is a podcast out there called The Fall of Civilizations. It should be required watching for all Americans.

i think the parameters change when you're speaking of the masses rather than an individual against another individual. a repressed population with nothing to lose? as you say, history is littered with examples.

When it comes to having to shoot someone women get the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. An old person with a concealed weapon is very dangerous. All they have to say is they were afraid for their life because they are old and couldn't run or defend them self any other way. The perp could not tell another story because... he is dead.

anyone scared, especially with a gun, is dangerous.

 

[Comshaw]

(snip)
they may be quite willing (and accepting) that their own life is likely lost but understand it's the price to pay. and caution makes for a clearer head, maybe, allowing them to plan and think. the unpredictability of the other is certainly frightening but, as i said earlier, it might leave them more open to exposing themselves.

then again, i think both would be something i'd rather never have to face (snip)

First off to make this work as an exercise you have to assume both parties are equal in intelligence and cunning. If not then you are injecting a personal bias into the scenario, limiting one over the other. If that's the case we can insert any number of factors that will inhibit either side and in so doing artificially weight the answer.

If the parameter of equal is followed then no matter if someone with everything to lose is willing to sacrifice themselves to attain their goal, they are automaticlly limited by what they must preserve. By eliminating everything they will not do, you end up with a number of things they will do, which gives you a list of possible attack angles. Because they are willing to scarifice themselves it may make them more likely to be clear headed and develop plans, but it also gives you fewer attack avenues to consider.

On the other side the person with nothing to lose can come from any where at any time. They may be prone to exposing themselves, but not any more then someone with everything to lose, who may do so because they preceive what they are trying to preserve is in imminent danger of being destroyed.

Think of it as an airplane battle. The person with everything to lose is flying a plane that can only attack from 3, 9 or 12 O'clock, while the person with nothing to lose can attack from any position. Which would you rather face?

Comshaw

 

[oggbashan]

No such thing as a person with nothing to lose.

When I was diagnosed with aggressive lung cancer (I'm now in unexpected remission) I felt that I had nothing left to lose because I would be dead within weeks.

When confronted with a knife-wielding mugger - I just told him to fuck off. He was so startled, he did.