I had the impression that you meant mass murderers. If you had said terrorist, I would not have questioned you.
I think Timothy McVeigh's actions were not an entirely unreasonable reaction to Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Have at it. Don’t look for me to play along.
The relevance is that you’re (using the pronoun in its indefinite sense) willing to cheer on people breaking the law to serve a higher justice, but you have limits on the type of harm the law-breaking can inflict: I’m going to generalize and say that most commentators here seem to be advancing the concept that damage to another’s property is acceptable in service of the greater good, but harm to another person is not.
So that’s the rule you’ve advanced.
McVeigh also believed that he was entitled to break the law to serve his higher good. He, unfortunately, did not accept the limits that your side wanted to impose. And, indeed, why should he, in his mind? At least we can say that the law has some prescriptive norm that’s universally understood. But you urge that the law must yield to you, with such exceptions as you delineate. What authority have you that McVeigh is bound to respect?
The point I’m making is that when you valorize the concept that it’s OK to flout the law for an end you call desirable, how surprised can you really be when someone else takes that concept and runs with it for HIS own purposes, purposes which you regard as evil? Why do YOU get to define the Real Law – the law that must be upheld even when the fake law is being broken?
Since you brought up Canadian terrorism, though, I did make a minimal effort and look at the wikipedia article. I guess if we go by your standard that civilized nations do not produce terrorists who kill 50 or more people, Canada is gold. Looking at the list of domestic incidents, I’m going to say Canada produces terrorists who, through shit-ass good luck, manage to stay below your arbitrary dividing line.
And this is why we are headed to civil war, one side believes that blowing up babies is equivalent to pulling down pro slavery idolatry.
They are willing to rationalize and idealize mass murder while telling others that property damage is equivalent to mass murder.
If the far right could just drop their obsession with protecting the white race the would realize that fighting for demilitarize police policies and partnering with groups like BLM is in their best interests maybe progress could be made in avoiding situations like Ruby Ridge and Ferguson.
Of course the problem is that this would require people who subscribe to nordicism to admit that it has been debunked and that people are just people.
A little leeway, a little thought, a little compassion-it isn’t a matter of “real” law vs. “fake” law, but a matter perhaps of a greater good vs. a lesser law, in the case of that particular statue which stayed in place not so much because of the power of law but more because of the law of power. Stealing a loaf of bread is as much against the law as is mass murder, but to compare the two in the same sentence, let alone the same paragraph or even the same argument invites the ghost of Inspector Javert.
I’m cool with this generalization. Can you explain why you think it’s bad?
The only standard I offered initially was “like McVeigh”. That could mean literally anything from McVeigh alone (i.e. the set of all objects that have McVeigh’s DNA) to every bit of matter in the universe (that, like McVeigh, has mass - so neutrinos also). I don’t know what challenge you’re presenting to my arbitrary line if you just present an arbitrary line of your own, but no big deal.
I concur, in any case, that Canada is indeed gold for reasons well beyond the scope of this thread.
You have to adjust for the 10/1 population ratio. The cutoff for Canada should be 5.
This is a clear strawman: I never said the two were equivalent. I’m saying that the same reasoning which allows you to joyfully ignore the law may be adopted by others to joyfully ignore much more important law.
Since I’ve made that distinction clear a number of times, I’m wondering why you’re choosing to offer a claim that ignores the distinction?
McVeigh once said in an interview that he didn’t know a daycare center was located inside the Murrah Building.
I am inclined to believe that as I was at one time acquainted with a former delivery driver for an overnight delivery service whose job required him to make numerous stops at offices inside the Murrah Building every day, and even he was unaware that a day care facility was located inside.
This is not to say that McVeigh had moral or humanitarian qualms about killing children however. He stated in the same interview that his only objection to the prospect of doing so was his belief that to kill a large number of kids would constitute an unacceptable amount of ‘collateral damage’ and undercut the message he intended to send via the bombing.
To the contrary, I believe there’s a great deal of value in explaining why Valjean’s theft of bread should be ignored and mass murder should be rejected. In the same sentence, no less.
My only challenge to you is to phrase your thoughts so that they actually mean something. I don’t think even you have any idea what you meant by “like McVeigh.”
The generalization itself is not bad. But the speaker arrogates to himself the authority to dispense with statutes (and statues!) he dislikes but insists that he retains the authority to declare other laws which must be obeyed, and that process produces bad results when others adopt the invitation to dispense with statutes but refuses to accept the speaker’s new list of laws that must be obeyed, instead substituting his own.
I disagree. Part of MY reasoning would include calculating how many people will be physically hurt, and how much damage will be done. If the # of people is more than “0” or if the damage is a lot, then my reasoning will conclude “Don’t do that”
People who use the “same reasoning” would not blow up a Federal Building with a daycare center in it.
Perhaps.
But if I say “You should not ignore that murder law” and someone tells me “Oh Yeah? Who are you to tell me what law to follow or not? You threw trash in a restaurant dumpster that time, which is against the law!”
I will rightfully consider that person a moron.
Most intelligent people can see the differences.
Believe me, I’m a fairly black-and-white type person when it comes to life situations. 95% of situations have a clear right answer. But even then, some things I just don’t care too much about, and toppling a statue is one of them. Also, knocking over rocks in a National Park, if anyone remembers that 
Suuuuure. Ride that horse and see where it takes you.
So the same reason that you speed by 20mph or check your cell phone when driving to work is the same reason someone commits intentional fatal offenses?
Property offenses and intentional fatal offenses and infractions are not equivalent and require different levels of self justification.
You are providing a false dichotomy because property damage is universally considered less reprehensible than mass murder.
Sick burn. The world stands in awe.
All the way to middle school, it seems.