nancyallen posted:That's right. So, being in charge and all, should we continue discussion on people such as the Minutemen group, what police can do to kerb vigilante action, ect be discussed here or open up a new thread and concentrate all our efforts here on Punisher types?
nancyallen posted:If you look I haven't been speaking up for vigilantism, in fact I've spoken at length against it.
nancyallen posted:What about the new thread Nazis, would it be okay by them for such issues to be discussed in another thread or would they prefer it be kept here?
nancyallen posted:king_alvarez posted:Hmmm, so you assume people are inherently evil unless proven otherwise? If you go back to Klebold and Harris I assume they are inherently evil because that is the only side that has been shown of them, the only side that they have portrayed.
king_alvarez posted:Hmmm, so you assume people are inherently evil unless proven otherwise?
nancyallen posted:As a matter of fact I would even say they are worse than someone like Bin Laden, at least he has a cause, Columbine on the other hand was evil for the sake of evil.
nancyallen posted:king_alvarez posted:Do you know what their friendship consisted of? How can you make a judgment without knowing? You seem awfully comfortable making generalizations about people. Maybe because it's true,
king_alvarez posted:Do you know what their friendship consisted of? How can you make a judgment without knowing? You seem awfully comfortable making generalizations about people.
nancyallen posted:Does that mean you go back on your accusations?
nancyallen posted:king_alvarez posted:Nice way of deflecting the point to another controversial argument. It's the truth, unless you'd like to try and prove otherwise.
king_alvarez posted:Nice way of deflecting the point to another controversial argument.
nancyallen posted:king_alvarez posted:I don't know, which is why I was asking for clarification. The reason I asked is because it seems like many of your views of humanity and the people here in this thread are based on misconceptions, and I was hoping it was due to inexperience rather than stubborness or bigotry. Klebold and Harris again?
king_alvarez posted:I don't know, which is why I was asking for clarification. The reason I asked is because it seems like many of your views of humanity and the people here in this thread are based on misconceptions, and I was hoping it was due to inexperience rather than stubborness or bigotry.
nancyallen posted:king_alvarez posted:You missed my point. You can't make a claim about some condition or general attitude of humanity and then assert that it is common knowledge if no one else seems to agree with the statement. So everyone here knows about, say, the protester who was buried alive by a bulldozer, as had been claimed? What's true for me has to be true of everyone else, or do some people get special treatment?
king_alvarez posted:You missed my point. You can't make a claim about some condition or general attitude of humanity and then assert that it is common knowledge if no one else seems to agree with the statement.
nancyallen posted:king_alvarez posted:How do these examples show that people aren't angry about those that seek to cause harm? Some people protest the security measures put into place after September 11, and the ones that prevented the London hijackings, even to the point where they completely ignore the terrorists attack and put all their focus on condemning these security measures.
king_alvarez posted:How do these examples show that people aren't angry about those that seek to cause harm?
nancyallen posted:Same for Iraq, you know people went over their as human shields to stand in the way of allied attacks, a rather extreme example of those who are against the war in Iraq who completely ignore Saddam's atrocities and place all their condemnation on Bush (for the record, I view the ramifications such as the political and world view fallout have been too severe to make the war worth it).
nancyallen posted:As for Klebold and Harris, I posted their condemnation at law enforcement for not letting them cause harm. I'll put it here again, unedited from the documentary I mentioned, you might get more of an idea.
king_alvarez posted:]As I mentioned, my issue isn't with what you consider to be the downsides of the life of a vigilante, it's with the supposed benefits that a vigilante could bring.
king_alvarez posted:Okay, so let me rephrase. So you assume some people are inherently evil unless proven otherwise?
king_alvarez posted:It occurs to me that this type of attitude might be the first step in dehumanizing someone. Instead of trying to understand why a person (a potentially good person) might commit an evil act, it relegates the person to a subhuman, a manifestation of evil. And once this has happened, it becomes much easier to view and treat someone as an object rather than a human.
king_alvarez posted:= Generalization.
king_alvarez posted:What, exactly, do you think I've accused you of? I've asked for clarification many times, but I've made very few accusations.
king_alvarez posted:You seem awfully comfortable making generalizations about people.
king_alvarez posted:Here again you are making assumptions based on what you want to believe about my views rather than on what I've actually stated.
king_alvarez posted:I've never met these people that you claim hold very little anger for those who seek to cause harm. I think you're making them up.
king_alvarez posted:I think you're grossly misinterpreting people's views. Are you a high school student, or perhaps a college student in freshmen or sophomore year?
king_alvarez posted:I wrote that sentence because I didn't want my point to be sidetracked by the discussion of your atheist example. Once again I do not want my point to be sidetracked. Care to comment on the rest of what I said in that paragraph?
king_alvarez posted:No, I was specifically talking about your views of humanity in general and your views of the people here in this thread.
king_alvarez posted:I'm not talking about knowledge of an event. I specifically mentioned the condition or attitudes of humanity. Do you claim that your views of the condition or attitudes of humanity are in fact true for everyone else?
king_alvarez posted:That does not mean that those people are not angry about those that seek to cause harm.
king_alvarez posted:(Condemning the war in Iraq) not = (ignoring or not being angry about Saddam's atrocities)
king_alvarez posted:Well, it gets complicated here. Although, I still feel that even K & H would be angry if they were the subject of unwanted harm.
Jedi_Cyana posted:Not to be a jerk with a one-liner, but isn't vigilantism faintly similar to facism?
nancyallen posted:king_alvarez posted:Ok, fair enough. Then I think that for the sake of clarity, this discussion should be limited to only vigilante actions or non-vigilante actions, but not both. What about the new thread Nazis, would it be okay by them for such issues to be discussed in another thread or would they prefer it be kept here?
king_alvarez posted:Ok, fair enough. Then I think that for the sake of clarity, this discussion should be limited to only vigilante actions or non-vigilante actions, but not both.
nancyallen posted:Ah, the story was from memory. My point stands, if I think something needs to be emphasized I'll emphasize it, and if that's something people don't like I make no apologies about that.
nancyallen posted:I guess it depends on how you define vigilantes. Different people have different definitions. Minutemen group and letter box drops, people who chase down those on the Internet, some define them as vigilantes, some not. Another example, how does one define Bush supporters? Those who don't condemn him outright? Those who support his controversial actions? Another example, how does one define atheists? Those who simply do not believe in God? Those who actively attack believers? Another example, how does one define neocons? You see what I'm saying here? Different people define vigilantes, Bush supporters, atheists, neocons, differently. My definition on vigilantes is a catch all phrase for those who take the law into their own hands...that means those who warn their neighbors about pedophiles, those who try and incite action and violence, that sort of thing. Not necessarily illegal actions but those who try and enforce the law or their concept of right and wrong without being qualified and charged with the task of doing so.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:By that last sentence, you seem to be justifying being wrong because it emphasizes the point you wanted to make more dramatically than the truth would, that Galileo died of natural causes.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:There already is a definition of vigilante, however. The Minutemen, for example, simply don't fit the actual definition of what a vigilante is simply because they're not enforcing any form of punishment, they're just calling law enforcement.
nancyallen posted:Lowbacca_1977 posted:By that last sentence, you seem to be justifying being wrong because it emphasizes the point you wanted to make more dramatically than the truth would, that Galileo died of natural causes. You don't think maybe you're splitting hairs just a little? The point I'm making is that I feel it's important to address issues. Does me being wrong about Galileo being killed by the church somehow make the point I'm trying to make invalid?
nancyallen posted:Lowbacca_1977 posted:There already is a definition of vigilante, however. The Minutemen, for example, simply don't fit the actual definition of what a vigilante is simply because they're not enforcing any form of punishment, they're just calling law enforcement. Certainly not on par with what people have done. Tell you what, I'll call the media and tell them to get it right and not refer to people such as the Minutemen as vigilantes, but that aside the issue I'm discussing is how people take the law into their own hands in light of what they see as ineffective or corrupt law enforcement.
nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted:Okay, so let me rephrase. So you assume some people are inherently evil unless proven otherwise? Yes, because nothing has been shown to indicate otherwise.
nancyallen posted:However, to put it in blunt terms, being all in touch with all that touchy feely **** can drive you mad, there are times where there is no answer,
nancyallen posted: As much as you might condemn dehumanization a certain degree of it is necessary.
nancyallen posted:It's certainly necessary for soldiers to be able to do their job
nancyallen posted:it's necessary for people to be able to switch off, to be able to not psychoanalyze and put their reading on freud to use.
nancyallen posted:king_alvarez posted:= Generalization. Well, waah. If me stating what faults an atheist might have is a generalization, tough.
nancyallen posted:king_alvarez posted:What, exactly, do you think I've accused you of? I've asked for clarification many times, but I've made very few accusations. In this thread alone? Let's see...
nancyallen posted:Even the worst people have good in them? Well in the case of Klebold and Harris show us.
nancyallen posted:judging others? I'm not sure how to tell you this, but...um...well...there are about five billion people who would judge atrocities such as Columbine the same way.
nancyallen posted:king_alvarez posted:That does not mean that those people are not angry about those that seek to cause harm. So why then do they ignore them and focus all their venom at the security measures?
nancyallen posted:king_alvarez posted:(Condemning the war in Iraq) not = (ignoring or not being angry about Saddam's atrocities) They went over there to put their lives at risk defending Iraq from attack. If that is not ignoring the atrocities then tell me what is.
nancyallen posted:king_alvarez posted:Well, it gets complicated here. Although, I still feel that even K & H would be angry if they were the subject of unwanted harm. Unwanted harm to them means not being allowed to steal, not being allowed to kill. Unwanted harm means they 'can't deprive some **** dumb **** of his possessions if he leaves them in the front seat of his **** van, in plain sight, in the middle of **** nowhere, on a **** night'. Explain that one.
