- Where does it say I WANT rapists to continue raping? I said I would not feel bad for the rapist. No words need to be put in my mouth.
On my previous post I messed up the quotes, if someone can fix it, thanks. If not, okay.
Your opinion is internally inconsistent and you ‘respected my opinion’ by implying I was a pedophile, you goddamn hypocrite.
Nobody needs to watch that movie. It was an overwrought piece of shit with a gutless cop-out of an ending.
No, I think he got that from the way you seem to be arguing in favor of anarchy. You’re basically saying it’s okay if people just ignore the law, if they’re angry enough and their anger is sufficiently justified. Sounds like anarchy to me. If that’s not what you’re advocating, perhaps you should articulate yourself more clearly.
Or, it could be that because your position it 100% incorrect, Monty does not agree with it. I think you’ve got cause and effect reversed, there.
Yes, that does seem to be what you’re arguing. You say that you don’t care what happens to this guy, no matter how violent or degrading. That’s a position that is very difficult to reconcile with a respect for fairness and the rule of law.
And that’s a total non-sequitor. I’m fairly certain that Monty does not think society is 100% fair. How does this fact in anyway support your position in this thread?
You’ve really demonstrated that attitude in this thread, haven’t you?
Right here:
You don’t actually say “rape,” but that’s pretty strongly implied by saying you hope “his life behind bars is full of misery, pain, and torment.” Rape is, generally speaking, the default assumption of what sort of miserable, painful torment one can expect in prison. And, of course, you can’t have rape without a rapist, so yeah, you pretty much have said you want rapists to continue raping. We don’t need to put words in your mouth to get this stuff, we just need to pay attention to the ones you’ve put in there yourself.
As a side note, you don’t really need to number your arguments if you’re only going to make one of them.
- Right.
- Hi, Miller!
Jesus, man, be careful with that shit! I don’t want Opal gunning for me for muscling in on her territory. I hear she’s got a tattoo gun and she ain’t afraid to use it.
Miller, thanks for the very cogent posting in response to FormerMarineGuy. I was teaching a class so was away from the computer. (Of course, I have another class starting in about 5 minutes.) What you posted is exactly what my responses to him would have been.
p.s. I no longer watch R-rated movies. It’s a religious thing, actually. So, don’t count on me hieing down to the local video shop and renting the thing.
Can you actually be so stupid? Really. I want to know. You can cherry pick a couple of troglodytes who said something along those lines, but that is NOT what I believe FormerMarineGuy and several others were saying.
That is certainly not my belief either.
Do I think the legal system should condone, enable, or look the other way when a criminal receives ‘punishment’ outside the system? Nope. The tattooer should be punished, and I’d be willing to bet he knows he’ll be punished. If it were legally permissible, would a I want the child killer tattooed? Maybe. I don’t want to hear any slippery slope histrionics using hyperbolic scenarios, so let’s just say it would depend on the circumstances. I mean, if you want to have histrionics, be my guest, but direct them at someone else please. Finally, what do I think about a violent guy whose vile acts earned him hatred and abuse from a like minded violent guy? I shrug it off. Punish the tattooer; punish the prison officials if they were a party to it; but don’t waste any tears boo-hooing about a tattooed child killer.
Next thing you know, someone will want to bring a suit against the state and make this monster wealthy for his misfortune. Yeah, that would be the sign of a real civilized society.
If by “bull-stomp your way to the head of the herd” you mean “post a message to a message board” and by “roar your self-righteous indignation at these untermenschen and anyone who supports them” you mean “state an opinion that you don’t agree with” then yeah, I guess I’m the true man you refer to. Doesn’t it just make you want to put on some lipstick and blow me?
Are you suggesting that suffering through any of these things should result in special pleading for a guy who fucked and killed a little girl? I hope not.
I think I just came down with irony-poisoning.
You see kiddies, because what I did there was ape the hyperbolic debate style of our friend here, which apparently went on a low-atmosphere sub-orbital flight right on over his head.
I’m not sure how you got the idea that was anything close to what I was saying. However, suffering those things means that you getting on your high-horse and dismissing these people as monsters, or some kind of animalistic sub-species unworthy of the basic, ethical right not to be tortured comes across as arrogant and self-righteous.
No, but you evidently are. I didn’t cherrypick jack. I summed up the whole “delight in someone’s misfortune but it’s okay because we despise him” “argument.”
As arac just showed briliantly, you completely missed my point–and you’re evidently not too conversant with our own point either.
That should be:
You should watch the movie because in the movie, the law was subverted by local prejudices. When justice fails and you are willing to suffer the consequencs of taking the law into your own hands, then I couldn’t fault anyone for doing exactly that. The difference is that in this case, justice didn’t fail.
If that is what everyone else is saying then I guess we don’t really have an argument.
No, I shouldn’t watch the movie. That’s for two reasons. The first is what I stated upthread.
I had to read your post a few times to ensure you really did post that sentence and I wasn’t merely imagining it to be there. I suggest you read it yourself. Look at all of the words in your sentence.
How did justice fail in the case mentioned in the OP? The murderer faced trial and was sentenced and incarcerated pursuant to that sentence. The sentence is that he spend the rest of his natural life in prison and that without the possibility of parole.
Here’s the second reason I don’t watch that movie: It evidently supports inane reasoning.
Your assertion is that justice failed in the case mentioned in the OP in that the offender was not executed. The other criminal did not end the first one’s life; he maimed him. So, in your twisted view of justice, the second criminal also failed.
My tears aren’t wasted. They are for both the victim of the original crime, the victim of the vigilante crime, and for society.
Quick synopsis of the film: A couple of racist rednecks kidnap Sam Jackson’s daughter and rape and mutilate her. They manage to get out on a technicality, though, so Sam Jackson shows up at the courthouse and guns them both down. He goes on trial for murder, and it becomes a big media show trial, the Klan rolls into town, people are kidnapped, lawyers are intimidated, cars are chased, and things explode. At the end, Sam Jackson beats the murder rap on the grounds that he’s Sam Jackson, you punk-ass motherfuckers. That’s a legal term of art. Really stupid movie on a number of counts.
Not sure what you’re getting at. That’s precisely what happened in the movie: a couple of racist child rapists go free (justice being subverted) because the victim was black (by local prejudices).
It didn’t fail. He’s still talking about the movie, not the OP.
No, I don’t think he’s saying that at all. He’s explaining why the movie isn’t applicable to the case in the OP. In real life, justice was done before the vigilante showed up, therefore there’s no excuse for the vigilante’s actions. In the movie, justice fails, and this is presented as justification for vigilantism. The movie argues that if the victims are sufficiently sleazy and reprehensible, then it’s okay to kill them, even if a court lets them go. This is why the movie sucks. If instead it had questioned wether seeking justice on your own is worth the sacrifice of your own life, it might have been able to make an interesting point. But Jackson walks at the end of the film. It’s not a genuine examination of the role of the law in society and how it relates to the concept of justice. It merely uses the courtroom as a plot device, first to give Jackson a motive to act, and then to give him a reprieve at the end so they can have a happy ending.
I was getting at that there’s no excuse for vigilantism, as vigilantism is (IMHO) driven by local prejudices. In the case in the OP, the local prejudice is that the victim of Mr. Tattoo got off too lightly and therefore justice wasn’t done, justice failed.
Apparently, in the movie the first local prejudice was that it’s okay to rape and mutilate a Black woman. The second was that it’s okay to go murder someone because you disagree with the court decision. The third was that as long as the victims are White and the offender is Black, for mercy’s sake let’s get the KKK into the act and have the other side look just as bad.
Oh, hey, I’m losing count of the different prejudices involved and, as I said above, I’m not going to watch the flick.
Did they? I’ve only seen the movie once but I seem to recall Jackson gunned them down at the courthouse after they got bail or were being moved or something, not that they were about to walk scot free.
I didn’t care for it overall, either. The “Ro-Ark” thing was sufficiently irritating.
“Ro-Ark?”
BTW, what was the “technicality?” Yes, I understand the movie’s fictional; I’m just curious now about that one detail.
Am I right in thinking that your position is that in a system of laws vigilantism is never ever justified if due process has been followed?
If so to my mind you favour a legal system not a justice system. Justice being simply a sometimes side product of the application of law. To my mind that’s scarier than mob rule.