Peeping-tom caught under bed and beaten properly

[CrAz3D]

http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5767091&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1&vo=2.2

Another good beat-down story.

[Sidoh]

Teacher: "What do you kids want to do when you grow up?"
Crazed: "I wanna be a vigilante!"

[CrAz3D]

Teacher: "What do you kids want to do when you grow up?"
Crazed: "I wanna be a vigilante!"

Actually, in first grade it was "President" ... my mom was flipping through old school papers about a year ago and told me this. ;)!



But really, vigilante justice isn't wrong ... so long as it's still justice

[Blaze]

Teacher: "What do you kids want to do when you grow up?"
Crazed: "I wanna be a vigilante!"

Actually, in first grade it was "President" ... my mom was flipping through old school papers about a year ago and told me this. ;)!

It's a good thing the free-masons have that thing rigged, or I'd might have been worried!   ;)

But really, vigilante justice isn't wrong ... so long as it's still justice

There's a difference between being a vigilante and assaulting people who commit crimes..

[Sidoh]

But really, vigilante justice isn't wrong ... so long as it's still justice

I completely disagree, as I've said numerous times throughout these types of threads.  It's pointless to get into it again, though, as I'm almost certain there's no talking sense into you. :P

It's a good thing the free-masons have that thing rigged, or I'd might have been worried!   ;)

Hahaha.

[CrAz3D]

And in this case, it's vigilantism.

Subjective subjective again Sidoh ;)

[Sidoh]

Subjective subjective again Sidoh ;)

You're boring.  Something being subjective doesn't imply that you can't debate over it.

[CrAz3D]

Subjective subjective again Sidoh ;)

You're boring.  Something being subjective doesn't imply that you can't debate over it.

But you keep claiming my thoughts are senseless, that isn't accepting my argument and giving real reasons against it, you just attack me.

[Sidoh]

But you keep claiming my thoughts are senseless, that isn't accepting my argument and giving real reasons against it, you just attack me.

There's a good reason behind that.  I've tried.  You're relentlessly stubborn.  Even if something is obviously true or accepted by a ridiculously high proportion of the population, you still play the "subjective" card.

[CrAz3D]

You obviously haven't provided persuasive arguments against vigilante justice being a positive thing, in some cases

[Sidoh]

You obviously haven't provided persuasive arguments against vigilante justice being a positive thing, in some cases

I wouldn't make the argument that vigilantism isn't valuable in some (usually hypothetical) cases.  In cases like these, though, it isn't worth it.  Taking the law into your own hands doesn't come with the necessity to grant the criminals the rights that they and every other person deserve, which is inarguably an issue.  The legal and justice systems are designed in such a way that everyone is usually treated fairly.  I say usually to allow for exceptions like police brutality and other similar offenses.

[iago]

It's a good thing the free-masons have that thing rigged, or I'd might have been worried!   ;)

I thought it was the Stone Cutters with Captain Picard?

Wait, that's Oscar night...

There's a difference between being a vigilante and assaulting people who commit crimes..

Totally. Assault != justice. Assault = vengeance, anger, etc., but definitely not justice. The average utility of the world falls. It's not going to prevent any crimes, and it's not going to stop that person from committing more crimes. So what good is it? It makes the assaulter feel better about himself. What good does that do the world? None.

But, like Sidoh said, there's no point in debating it. :)

[Chavo]

it's not going to stop that person from committing more crimes.

That depends on the degree of the assault!  But seriously, *yawn* at your recent string of less-than-sound arguments crazed.

[CrAz3D]

You obviously haven't provided persuasive arguments against vigilante justice being a positive thing, in some cases

I wouldn't make the argument that vigilantism isn't valuable in some (usually hypothetical) cases.  In cases like these, though, it isn't worth it.  Taking the law into your own hands doesn't come with the necessity to grant the criminals the rights that they and every other person deserve, which is inarguably an issue.  The legal and justice systems are designed in such a way that everyone is usually treated fairly.  I say usually to allow for exceptions like police brutality and other similar offenses.

Who says criminals have the same rights we do?

[Krazed]

You obviously haven't provided persuasive arguments against vigilante justice being a positive thing, in some cases

I wouldn't make the argument that vigilantism isn't valuable in some (usually hypothetical) cases.  In cases like these, though, it isn't worth it.  Taking the law into your own hands doesn't come with the necessity to grant the criminals the rights that they and every other person deserve, which is inarguably an issue.  The legal and justice systems are designed in such a way that everyone is usually treated fairly.  I say usually to allow for exceptions like police brutality and other similar offenses.

Who says criminals have the same rights we do?

US law, btw. -- Note: I don't follow it, so I don't really care that these guys didn't. Just throwing that in there.