I do not like vigilantism. But.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-10-2012, 12:09 PM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(02-10-2012 01:25 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(02-10-2012 12:56 PM)Ozzie Wrote:  But personally, I think you are a Creationist troll looking for quotes that you guys can use against us, so you can keep making the erroneous remarks that we atheists and agnostics are somehow savages and violent thugs.

I can't quite figure this out though. Why bother quote mining? Why not just make stuff up and claim that we said it? It's not like anyone's gonna check, or even if they do it won't hurt sales - that's the beauty of selling shit to stupid people. For this reason I think OP must be legit. Undecided

If Ozzie would have taken the time to look around the net as I know he can, then he would not have said what he did. I don't know if I like him or not though as I did not bother doing that myself. He does thinks a bit like I do though, and like me, must have a delinquent attitude and a--------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIjddye2JSA

P S. Ozzie. Let me know if you want some links to where I go to kick believer asses.
You can learn from me. One thing though. You will have to adjust your thinking and posting style.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2012, 12:21 PM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(02-10-2012 07:23 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(02-10-2012 08:56 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  Who asked for compounding the punishment because of the church leadership?
Not me.

Are you suggesting that atheists are breaking the law of the land?
For your analogy to be close, they would have to be.

That is the law at issue here. Nothing else.

Regards
DL

I think you're equivocating "the land" in "the law of the land". I gave a very protracted explanation of why these groups aren't breaking the laws of the countries they live in. Our countries' laws don't apply to them, and when they do (because those groups are breaking our laws within our borders), those laws are being enforced.

Hmm.
Is it?

This is British but they speak a good deal about the U S experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnxwgDxxA...re=related

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Greatest I am's post
03-10-2012, 12:55 PM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(03-10-2012 11:35 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  As stated, vigilantism is not my first choice.

If someone has someone who should answer to the law in hand, then to the law he should go.

In the popes case, the law is ignoring him and that is the only reason I make the type of noise I am making.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryw6kUDKP...r_embedded

Regards
DL

Where we differ is that I consider vigilantism to be waaaaaaaay too far out a response, *never* an option worthy of serious consideration. I'd rather see improvements to the current system, maybe challenging or prosecuting the pope in absentia or something in this particular case (although I don't necessarily see him as the big target).

Vigilantism is a shortcut to justice *in your opinion* and *in the short term*. In the long term I think its effects are too high a price to pay. I'd rather the slower, surer method, even if it takes another 20-50 years. Having said that, in 50 odd years apparently the world will have ended in at least 3 different ways Tongue

I apologize but my net connection is slow so I can't watch the video.

PS: *Why* are you going after the pope? It seems like a pretty strong vendetta? If too personal a question please do feel free to ignore it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2012, 01:54 PM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
Quote:
(03-10-2012 12:55 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(03-10-2012 11:35 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  As stated, vigilantism is not my first choice.

If someone has someone who should answer to the law in hand, then to the law he should go.

In the popes case, the law is ignoring him and that is the only reason I make the type of noise I am making.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryw6kUDKP...r_embedded

Regards
DL

Where we differ is that I consider vigilantism to be waaaaaaaay too far out a response, *never* an option worthy of serious consideration. I'd rather see improvements to the current system, maybe challenging or prosecuting the pope in absentia or something in this particular case (although I don't necessarily see him as the big target).

Who in pedophile protecting is bigger?

Quote:Vigilantism is a shortcut to justice *in your opinion*

Not really. It is another less desirable form of justice.

Quote: and *in the short term*. In the long term I think its effects are too high a price to pay. I'd rather the slower, surer method, even if it takes another 20-50 years. Having said that, in 50 odd years apparently the world will have ended in at least 3 different ways Tongue

I apologize but my net connection is slow so I can't watch the video.

No problem. It only helps to show how guilty the Vatican and pope are.

Quote:PS: *Why* are you going after the pope? It seems like a pretty strong vendetta? If too personal a question please do feel free to ignore it.

Not personal at all. Fact is, I was born R C and the Church was of some use to me in growing up. I was never raped but it was a close thing.

The thing is, if any man wants justice for one, then he should want justice for all.
If the children of our nations cannot gain justice then what makes any man think he can get justice. We are all in this together, alone, and the first tenant of morality is Care/harm.

Any man that does not do the first then he is not moral at all FMPOV.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

This link explains that term but if you cannot view it, here are what I think are the five main tenants of morality.

Care/harm ---Children first then women.
Reciprocity/fair play
In group bonding
Recognizing authority
Purity/sanctity

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2012, 02:16 PM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(03-10-2012 01:54 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  The thing is, if any man wants justice for one, then he should want justice for all.
If the children of our nations cannot gain justice then what makes any man think he can get justice. We are all in this together, alone, and the first tenant of morality is Care/harm.

Morality is tricky stuff. Justice - defined by the law? But there are unjust laws. I agree that pedophiles should not escape justice. But again, vigilantism is too strong a response. The whole point of the law and courts etc is to make sure that if possible innocent people are not condemned. With a mob, that kind of distinction goes out the window - in the end, you'll just be hanging priests for no good reason, and you will be the enemy then. Argh. Brain is all fluffy, hope this makes sense...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2012, 02:40 PM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2012 02:44 PM by Vosur.)
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
"Who's going to stop abortion doctors from killing all those innocent babies? I'm going to kill them in order to save the babies, because the government isn't doing anything!"

Do you support vigilantism in such cases as well? If you don't, you're using a double standard.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2012, 04:48 PM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(03-10-2012 02:40 PM)Vosur Wrote:  "Who's going to stop abortion doctors from killing all those innocent babies? I'm going to kill them in order to save the babies, because the government isn't doing anything!"

Do you support vigilantism in such cases as well? If you don't, you're using a double standard.

I would be using a double standard only if abortion doctors were doing something illegal. They are not. Those who protect pedophiles are.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Greatest I am's post
03-10-2012, 05:43 PM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(03-10-2012 12:21 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  
(02-10-2012 07:23 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I think you're equivocating "the land" in "the law of the land". I gave a very protracted explanation of why these groups aren't breaking the laws of the countries they live in. Our countries' laws don't apply to them, and when they do (because those groups are breaking our laws within our borders), those laws are being enforced.

Hmm.
Is it?

This is British but they speak a good deal about the U S experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnxwgDxxA...re=related

Regards
DL

I enjoyed the documentary (I'm already on to The Secrets of Scientology by Panorama -- it's a good program) but it didn't exactly make your case. They discussed a priest that was able to go back to working with children after his conviction, but the part to note here was "after his conviction"... every single case noted was punished by law. Not one of these priests got away scot-free (at least, none that we know about). Now, you may feel the punishments weren't severe enough, but I still don't feel that's deserving of a beating... that would be "cruel and unusual" (a phrase found in the US Constitution that prevents punishments that aren't distributed equally).

Pedophile priests and misogynist Muslims may anger you, but vigilante justice is a bad outlet for such anger. Violence leads to violence. I think it can lead to a legitimate slippery slope, one that excuses others who would also want to do the same (perhaps with less good reason).

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
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
04-10-2012, 08:20 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2012 08:32 AM by Vosur.)
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(03-10-2012 04:48 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  I would be using a double standard only if abortion doctors were doing something illegal. They are not. Those who protect pedophiles are.

Regards
DL
That actually depends on which country we are talking about.

[Image: Abortion_Laws.svg]

Blue - Legal on request
Green - Legal for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, socioeconomic factors, and/or fetal defects
Yellow - Illegal with exception for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, and/or fetal defects
Brown - Illegal with exception for rape, maternal life, health, and/or mental health
Orange - Illegal with exception for maternal life, health, and/or mental health
Red - Illegal with no exceptions
Black - Varies
Grey - No information

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publica...lchart.pdf

Let me rephrase my question. Would you support vigilantism in the scenario described earlier in a country in which abortion for non-life threatening reasons is illegal?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2012, 09:06 AM
RE: I do not like vigilantism. But.
(03-10-2012 05:43 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(03-10-2012 12:21 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  Hmm.
Is it?

This is British but they speak a good deal about the U S experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnxwgDxxA...re=related

Regards
DL

I enjoyed the documentary (I'm already on to The Secrets of Scientology by Panorama -- it's a good program) but it didn't exactly make your case. They discussed a priest that was able to go back to working with children after his conviction, but the part to note here was "after his conviction"... every single case noted was punished by law. Not one of these priests got away scot-free (at least, none that we know about). Now, you may feel the punishments weren't severe enough, but I still don't feel that's deserving of a beating... that would be "cruel and unusual" (a phrase found in the US Constitution that prevents punishments that aren't distributed equally).

Pedophile priests and misogynist Muslims may anger you, but vigilante justice is a bad outlet for such anger. Violence leads to violence. I think it can lead to a legitimate slippery slope, one that excuses others who would also want to do the same (perhaps with less good reason).

Violence may indeed lead to violence.
The violent rape of children should bring a violent reaction from the law. In this case the law is not responding as it should and someone should if we are to maintain that we are a just society.

The reason is key.

If a vigilante is not sure that he can face a jury of his peers then he is likely not in the right moral position in what he is doing. If he is, then he should take pride in what he is doing and willing to take the chance that his peers will agree.

That is the chance that the vigilante faces when he breaks the law.
In the case of a murder, he will live or die by his decision and knows it.

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