I’ve watched this 20 times already. nostr:note1haael0ny5szecy4d09p3hsd2e7fg99x23a2gv36hhpq46xddnuqsxrdlxv
Discussion
That's not a super dad, that's a criminal. He had the bike stopped. The danger was passed. He then threw the guy off the ledge. Go to jail. The rest of you who think this is admirable, you go to jail too.
Fuck the biker. He damn near ran over a child because he was a fucking moron.
Retarded.
That doesn't change the fact that the danger was neutralized, and that guy still chose to do violence. That's a crime. Defending someone is one thing, but that's not what that was.
Apparently, I'm being this guy
No, youre just being a self righteous buffoon. Which is fine, I'm a buffoon sometimes also I'm sure. You're wrong about this though.
I am not. Watch it again. There was a pause, and he decided to throw the biker off.
Yes. Warranted. Putting people, especially little kids, at risk deserves a little lesson.
Then you are basically a criminal, and the situation will arise where you think you have a right to teach someone a lesson. Remember this wgeb you're behind bars.
You've got to be trolling.
So everything that's illegal is wrong? Youre tossing the word "criminal" around, are you using it to describe illegal acts, or immoral acts?
What gives the state the right to teach someone a lesson whereas a man is always wrong in doing so? Does justice mean revenge perpetrated by the state, or reasoned and measured revenge in your mind?
Surely you're trolling. Did you watch the end of the video?
Justice is never revenge. If courts and laws are being used for revenge, that's injustice and tyranny. That's what we currently have. Justice means "things in their place." Justice is doing right by others. Justice is helping the guy up, not knocking him down. Justice *was* preventing an accident, but became injustice when the guy assaulted the other guy. A court OF justice would use a jury of peers and all available evidence to decide if/how the attacker should be prevented from attacking again. Its not revenge, and it's not the state.
So if a guy murders someone, and promises to never do it again, and he means it and we know he means it and believes him, why does he still go to prison?
If it is believed that he won't do it again, he is let out. This has happened in the US. It happens more frequently in some European countries. I'm not saying we should copy them. This is what happens. Its reality. And no, I don't want to live in a country where the state murders people, even if those people have committed murder. Is this too nuanced? This is bizarre...
So you don't think a murderer, particularly a one time murderer who you're sure will never murder again, should face any punishment?
Let's frame it this way: the dad in the video, hes done "assaulting" the guy on the bicycle. Why should he go to prison? The threat is neutralized, hes not going to keep attacking him...
The guy on the bicycle, how do you ensure he won't continue to be negligent without the lesson he was taught in the video? Maybe he should go in front of a jury and have his legs broken so he can't ride bicycles anymore? How would you handle that? Not punishment, right, so how do you teach someone that negligence is dangerous to others? I'm sure someone has told him somewhere that fact, obviously he didn't internalize it.
You can make all these arguments in a court. I'm saying he should face the court. That was assault. It doesn't matter if you think it was justified. Tell the court that.
Why a court? Does a court have more of a right to enact retribution than the father of the kid? If the court doesn't have the right to enact retribution either, why should he face a court at all in the first place? I don't want to make these arguments in court, I want to understand exactly hwrte youre coming from because right now I just don't see a coherent moral framework here.
And I have a side question, why should I face a court just because I agree with the guy? Why shouldn't I, say, sit on the jury?
A jury is supposed to be randomly selected. There's a chance you would sit on the jury, or someone who agrees with you.
It has to be a court because a society where people do violence when they feel like it is just a violent society, or more like a warlord situation. That exists in plenty of places - you can pick from Somalia (great name for wines), or Afghanistan (taliban gasolina, best gasolina), South Sudan, parts of Central America... You have options.
Well, the discussion seems to have petered out. I just want to recognize the fact that no one called each other names (unless batman counts, my bad), and I like that. Thanks for that.
Batman and buffoon lol but I also called myself a buffoon.
Yeah I dunno. You don't want it to be acceptable to just hurt people. But there's a difference between just hurting people and hurting people justly in response to wrongdoing. I view negligence as wrongdoing.
I think justice is defined as making things right, and that sometimes that involves retaliation. And on that front, justice to me is measured and reasoned retaliation, and not defined by who perpetrates it. A jury of your peers is a lynch mob. It's no better than the person wronged retaliating, except that the person wronged knows with 100% certainty that you wronged them.
There is a subset of people in this world that would harm you if they knew you wouldn't retaliate. I agree with you that those people need to be removed from the environment. I disagree with you that caging them is the way to do that. But you can't get them all, and so sometimes they harm people, and they must fear consequences for that.
Cry about it dude. Men learn boundaries by crossing them and then getting taught. All of us every now and then need to come face to face with the world and be reminded from time to time. If you've never been hit in the mouth from taking things too far you don't know the first thing about yourself.
Fair, and doing violence is taking it too far, and the lawful and appropriate response should be found in a court.
Why a court?
Think of this. The threat of the evil dad is neutralized now right? So wouldn't retaliation be wrong, in a court or out of it? Why is it OK to punish the dad for his behavior but wrong to punish the negligent cocksucker? Because the state did it?
I'm being idealistic about the court. A court should not be a part of the state. They currently are, because we have allowed the state to subvert the court systems, but again, I'm being idealistic. I can imagine such a court finding him innocent - it would depend on the jury.
Negligence is bad, but purposely harming someone is not negligence - that's aggravated assault. The biker may have made a mistake - we can't see his intention, and we can't see if he would have gotten off the wall on his own. It is correct to stop him. I hope I would have those fast reflexes. But the Dad didn't stop there. He then assaulted the biker. That's a crime. Do you really want to live in a society where assault is not a crime?
I want to, and currently do, live in a society where the reason and intent behind such an act is taken into account when determining whether a crime has been committed.
But it seems like you wouldn't be, if you had your way.
I'm very much using reason. Just because you don't understand it doesn'tean it doesn't make sense. Like I said earlier, you're just wrong on this.
Then go play batman, and rage against the police when they arrest you.
Why would they arrest me? To enact revenge on behalf of the state? Or what?
That's quite a reversal. I think you ought to re-read our discussion.
Alright man. I'm trying to understand your reasoning here because it doesn't hold water to me the way I understand it right now, maybe I'm missing something. You're not really explaining your premises here, just declaring that mine are wrong. I'd love it if you'd explain it to me so I can understand it, maybe you're right and I'll learn something.
Right now, your reasoning appears to be:
- it is always wrong to act aggressively or violently towards others except to neutralize a present threat,
- but you should get punished for acting violently or aggressively towards others,
- but not by any individual, but by a court, but not a court that's part of a state.
- And, you shouldn't be punished, because revenge is always wrong, even when the state does it.
Do I have that right?
That's awfully complex. My reasoning is that deliberately harming someone is a crime. Determining if its deliberate, and what should be done about it, is up to a court. This is entirely normal. This is how it works in real life.
Deliberately harming someone isn't always a crime though. When the state does it, for example, it isn't. You're saying that that also should be, but also that this guy deserves retaliation from a court. That's what makes no sense to me. It seems to me you're avoiding saying "only the state has the right to retaliation" because you see the error in that.
No one has a right to retaliation.
Seriously? Minor fracas under high adrenaline and no real damage done. WTF are you talking about jail for anyone?
A dude who chooses to do violence when it is not necessary is a menace to society. How many times will he do violence and without a camera catching it? No way to know, but here is proof that he is violent.