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.
Discussion
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.