I do not like vigilantism. But.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2012, 02:50 PM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(01-10-2012 02:21 PM)morondog Wrote:  Mob intelligence - take the minimum IQ and divide by the number of people in the mob. A certain kind of politician loves mobs for that reason. All others regard them with fear and loathing, for that reason.

As they should when dealing with a mob not interested in justice and enforcing the law of the land.

What of when they are interested in justice and enforcing the law?

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 03:05 PM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(01-10-2012 02:50 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  
(01-10-2012 02:21 PM)morondog Wrote:  Mob intelligence - take the minimum IQ and divide by the number of people in the mob. A certain kind of politician loves mobs for that reason. All others regard them with fear and loathing, for that reason.

As they should when dealing with a mob not interested in justice and enforcing the law of the land.

What of when they are interested in justice and enforcing the law?

Regards
DL

Because mobs don't make good decisions, even when they start out with an interest in justice and enforcing the law.

I'm not sure how old you are, but if you're not old enough to remember the Rodney King riots, then go research them. It's probably the most perfect example I can think of to illustrate how wrong your way of thinking really is.

Here's the short version. Rodney King was a guy who apparently was beaten by several Los Angeles policemen for no reason. This was video taped and the whole country saw it happen. The policemen were then tried in a court of law for this beating but were ultimately acquitted. Now, to me, and I think to just about everyone else, it looked like these policemen were guilty as hell (but I must admit that I didn't have all the facts - nevertheless, that video was really quite condemning against them). Apparently the citizens of Los Angeles felt the same way I did - guilty policemen did something horribly wrong (beating an innocent man) and got away with it.

A mob was formed. For justice. For enforcing the law. For the exact reasons that you suggest would be OK.

This mob then succumbed to its own mob mentality and everything got out of hand. The acquittals are considered to have triggered the Los Angeles riots of 1992. By the time the police, the U.S. Army, Marines and National Guard restored order, the riots had caused 53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damage to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses.

All that mob wanted was justice and enforcement of law. But 53 people died. DEAD. Gone forever. At the hands of this mob that just wanted justice. 3,100 business were burned and looted in the name of justice.

Note that not one of the policemen, nor any other policeman, was targeted for "justice" by this mob. Not that such a thing would be excusable, it's just that they weren't even trying to get "justice". They were just a mob, angry, violent, destructive, out of control. Damage was done. People died. Properties were destroyed.

That's not justice.

But it is what happens when mobs take over. even "when they are interested in justice and enforcing the law".

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
01-10-2012, 03:06 PM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
Once again you post this crap in both forums I'm a frequent reader to so I'll again debunk your claims with the same posting.

In case you didn't bother keeping up with the actual news there has been a slew of charges against cover up priests in both the US and Canada.

We care enough to act within the bounds of the law. If you want to point a finger of blame anywhere you can place it on George W. Bush for giving the pope immunity from liability on any sex abuse case.

This despite the popes direct involvement with crimen sollicitationis when he was a cardinal and prefect for the doctrine of the faith in 1967.

Don't know what crimen sollicitationis is? Go look it up its a rather....disgusting document. In English it means the crime of enticement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 03:45 PM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(01-10-2012 02:38 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  
(01-10-2012 02:00 PM)Impulse Wrote:  In our quest for resolutions and/or justice, we must never become like them. Justice must be sought in other ways. The Muslim extremist issue is completely different from the Papacy issue also. I don't see how vigilantism provides justice anyway for either situation. It doesn't bring back the dead and it doesn't contribute to resolving the issues. It's just a few more corpses with the blood on our hands instead.

How then to move the government to enforce the law of the land?

Regards
DL
I assume you mean the US government?

They already are moving.
Regarding pedophilia in the Catholic church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

The Muslim extremist issue is more complicated, but don't think for a minute the US government isn't working on far more than you know.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 04:33 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2012 11:27 PM by DLJ.)
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(01-10-2012 02:47 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  
(01-10-2012 02:15 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Yup, the intelligent British public attacked a paediatrician!

I would not mind a link if you have one.

Was he a pedophile who had escaped justice?

As requested...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/aug/30...on.society

btw... interesting that your thought was that it was a "he".

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 05:51 PM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
The problem with taking the law into your own hands is that you excuse everyone who wishes to do so. And what if Christians saw us in the same light that you see the Pope and Muslims? I think they do.

So, unless you want to erect a double-standard, you're suggesting that Christians should have the freedom to "enact justice" against atheists. "Great idea," he said sarcastically.

"But justice isn't being done!" you cry. Of course it is. Muslims aren't breaking the laws of their own countries, which is why they aren't being arrested for crimes. The Muslims in the US aren't committing the crimes done in Islamic states, because if they did they'd end up in Guantanamo Bay. The pope is the ruler of a city-state, and I imagine he's not breaking the "laws" of Vatican City. I think we all hate dictators that do whatever they like, but they're not law-breakers because they make their own laws. Other Catholics that commit these crimes are being arrested/sued, and I don't see why we'd need to compound their punishment for the sake of their leader's "crimes".

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
01-10-2012, 11:02 PM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(01-10-2012 02:50 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  As they should when dealing with a mob not interested in justice and enforcing the law of the land.

What of when they are interested in justice and enforcing the law?

There is no such thing as mob justice. That's why the term is used sarcastically.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 08:30 AM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(01-10-2012 03:05 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(01-10-2012 02:50 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  As they should when dealing with a mob not interested in justice and enforcing the law of the land.

What of when they are interested in justice and enforcing the law?

Regards
DL

Because mobs don't make good decisions, even when they start out with an interest in justice and enforcing the law.

I'm not sure how old you are, but if you're not old enough to remember the Rodney King riots, then go research them. It's probably the most perfect example I can think of to illustrate how wrong your way of thinking really is.

Here's the short version. Rodney King was a guy who apparently was beaten by several Los Angeles policemen for no reason. This was video taped and the whole country saw it happen. The policemen were then tried in a court of law for this beating but were ultimately acquitted. Now, to me, and I think to just about everyone else, it looked like these policemen were guilty as hell (but I must admit that I didn't have all the facts - nevertheless, that video was really quite condemning against them). Apparently the citizens of Los Angeles felt the same way I did - guilty policemen did something horribly wrong (beating an innocent man) and got away with it.

A mob was formed. For justice. For enforcing the law. For the exact reasons that you suggest would be OK.

This mob then succumbed to its own mob mentality and everything got out of hand. The acquittals are considered to have triggered the Los Angeles riots of 1992. By the time the police, the U.S. Army, Marines and National Guard restored order, the riots had caused 53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damage to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses.

All that mob wanted was justice and enforcement of law. But 53 people died. DEAD. Gone forever. At the hands of this mob that just wanted justice. 3,100 business were burned and looted in the name of justice.

Note that not one of the policemen, nor any other policeman, was targeted for "justice" by this mob. Not that such a thing would be excusable, it's just that they weren't even trying to get "justice". They were just a mob, angry, violent, destructive, out of control. Damage was done. People died. Properties were destroyed.

That's not justice.

But it is what happens when mobs take over. even "when they are interested in justice and enforcing the law".

No argument.
Every revolution or demand for a change to the status quo will cause hardship. Unfortunately, in today's political arena, politicians only react when forced to.

When justice breaks down, only a harsh reminder to the law makers end enforcers will put it back on track.

I have not tracked the number of beatings that Rodney King and that situation prevented but if the police needed a reminder that they were there to serve and protect, not be the bullies for their white masters.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 08:35 AM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(01-10-2012 03:06 PM)Godless Wrote:  Once again you post this crap in both forums I'm a frequent reader to so I'll again debunk your claims with the same posting.

In case you didn't bother keeping up with the actual news there has been a slew of charges against cover up priests in both the US and Canada.

We care enough to act within the bounds of the law. If you want to point a finger of blame anywhere you can place it on George W. Bush for giving the pope immunity from liability on any sex abuse case.

This despite the popes direct involvement with crimen sollicitationis when he was a cardinal and prefect for the doctrine of the faith in 1967.

Don't know what crimen sollicitationis is? Go look it up its a rather....disgusting document. In English it means the crime of enticement.

Hence the need for a wake up call for governments to end institutionalized protection of abusers and the seeking of justice for the victims.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 08:45 AM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(01-10-2012 03:45 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(01-10-2012 02:38 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  How then to move the government to enforce the law of the land?

Regards
DL
I assume you mean the US government?

They already are moving.
Regarding pedophilia in the Catholic church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

The Muslim extremist issue is more complicated, but don't think for a minute the US government isn't working on far more than you know.

No argument that some progress has been made but if you read some of the apologies that the Pope has publicly made, they are quite shallow and the problem has not gone away and probably will not till the rules on marriage for priests change.

I hope I am wrong but doubt it.

Some abuse will always be with us in what some wold say is acceptable numbers that does not take care of the institutionalized protection of pedophile priests.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: