Fuck the biker. He damn near ran over a child because he was a fucking moron.
Retarded.
Discussion
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.