Things like this make me ashamed to be British

That's where we differ. Rev. Phelps does not make the case against religion for me. Nor does Bin Laden or a child-buggering priest. I can tell the difference between those and a person of faith. Perhaps you can learn the difference between a ranting anti-theist and a rational atheist.

 

Again, not relevant. But THIS THIS THIS THIS.

 

The world is over populated as it is- childless couples ( gay or straight ) are doing the world a favour as I see it..

Thehippoz continues to make no sense at all however:

Sounds like he doesn't like religion bashing ( pointing out the hypocrisy in faith systems =/= bashing ). However:

Wut? that just makes no sense in any context- are you for or against homosexuality and religion?

 

yeah your pretty much the only athiest I've seen on the net that makes a lick of sense.. I'm a seeker myself in a lot of ways

@neil I'm more of a class clown than anything on these forums.. I generally post with previous threads in mind- it can be confusing to someone who just jumps in the serious section.. but I'm generally posting to the few that know I'm just kidding around

I mean if I jumped in these threads and saw gay sex and gangsta style warriors, I guess I would overreact too.. I see nexxos point though.. I should be a little more discreet on the man sandwiches and topics about hemmroids

don't really mean to offend (well except maybe supermonkey )

 

I would really really reheeeally love to meet those three chaps.

 

Why? So you can beat them up? At that point you're only proving that might makes right, and you'll only succeed in solidifying their world view - i.e. in a civilized world it is OK to resolve differences by violence, and the person who hits hardest makes the rules.

Suppose they dodge at the right moment and one of them gets in a lucky hit. You drop to the floor with a broken jaw. If they win the fight does that mean it's OK to start attacking gay people, or is your desire to meet them based purely on retaliatory vengeance?

 

He's simply expressing his desire that they meet justice somehow, and he's stating that he doesn't believe the court system will do it. Vigilantism grows from a desire to see those brought to justice that regular justice somehow passes over. It's rather human of him to say so, and it does express his desire that this behavior stop.

Vigilantism is wrong, true, but don't you occasionally wish that you had just five minutes and an ax handle with someone who got off with a slap on the wrist? It's an accession to humanity's inbuilt fair play mechanism.

 

Yes, and then my internal adult reasserts itself again. Vigilantism is a nice fantasy, but in practice it is just a one-man lynch mob.

 

Yes, but you're a fully actualized and properly educated adult. We don't exactly teach vigilantism is wrong, do we Batman?

 

No, but most adults know that Batman is a fantasy.

(...and some, apparently, do not.)

 

Exactamondo. People can take the "violence is bad" hippie stance, but modern society has desperately strived to be civilized and treat everyone fairly, and this is the result...

Older generations did things differently and thuggish behaviour was punished by the righteous majority who gave them all a bunch of fives. Nowdays it's all gone to crap. You have people showing up on your door to rob your home with a knife, and if you manage to turn their knife on them, you end up in a whole lot of trouble. And you have twats running around the streets in gangs beating people up and raiding all the shops, cowards who attack from behind, and kicking people when they are down. Our society is broken.

That's fine, because cowards like this are weak.

They only do this stuff because they can get away with it and have nothing to fear. I wish that was different.

 

Hmmm no. Society/civilisation has never been equal and just. If it wasn't might makes right, it was class makes right or money makes right. We all have fantasies about how previous generations would sort out thugs with a good clout around the ear, but only a few generations ago was also a society of ridiculously harsh and disproportionate punishments and injustice for the poor, ostracision of women caught pregnant out of wedlock, habitual wife beatings and child abuse and exploitation. It was a time of the Rough Music: lynch mobs taking the law into their own hands and frequently getting the wrong guy. A few hundred years ago, it was a time of witch hunts, slavery and people locking themselves in their houses at night, armed and fearful, because there was no such thing as police. An accusation of homosexuality could get you hanged, and many a crook would practice the art of molesting an unsuspecting male passer-by to blackmail him into avoiding such accusations. People like those gay beaters? They were the norm. And in those days walking down the city streets at night could really get you killed.

On balance, the society we have now is far, far safer, more just and more egalitarian than it has ever been.

EDIT: don't get me wrong: I totally empathise with the feeling. I too would find it greatly satisfying to work them over with an axe handle. But although it would make the world feel like a better place for a short while, after that it would make the world a little bit worse. And we're not supposed to be as dumb as they are.

 

Wow...I had forgotten I posted this thread. I had no idea it sparked off such a debate!

 

liberal thinking

 

Care to elaborate?

 

I've been thinking about this for ages during my wanderings. How to make a fundermentally flawed system work...?

The biggest issue more than anything is the detection and aprehension of said malcontents and criminals. If there was a policeman on every street corner, then the streets would be safer, as anything that did happen would be resolved quickly.

Now, the only way for this to work is by robots. The field is leaping forwards massively each year, so maybe this is an option. but then we get to the 'big brother is watching', which is a whole new issue.

Personally, i trust robotic systems more than people...

 

You say this, but somewhere along the line the robot was built, programmed and will probably be under the jurisdiction/control of a human. Doesn't really eliminate the human factor at all.

 

it's always the same with these type of attackers. they attack people who aren't expecting it when the attackers are prepared for a fight. As well as being well prepared for the attack the attackers also usually out number the victims.

These people just attack people for a thrill, a temporary adrenaline rush. they make sure there's very little side effect for them. It's all fun and games for the attacker because theres very little risk of them suffering. If they ever had the courage to attack a prepared target ( like a bouncer or boxer or body builder ) I would very very suprised. They pick on people they think are weak, the outnumbered, the unprepared and those that just don't want to fight.

I remember before we were old enough to drink in pubs we used to wonder the streets and some one tried to smash a bottle across my face - luckily it was full and didn't break. I was young and ready to tell him **** some thing harsh but he had 6 of his friends with him. anything else but walking away from a 2 ( me and my buddy ) on 6 is an instant kicking. It would happen a lot with the gangs. some one would tell you to **** off one on one but have a dozen of their friends ( a lot of them older guys) ready to give you a kciking if you answered back. It was pretty pointless really but it made them feel powerful.

When I was younger there was kind of a code amongst the adults ( 20 somethings) that you could go looking for a fight in bar or a football match or whatever but you'd only fight people who were also looking for a fight - no stomping, no weapons and don't strike a man when he's down, things like that. nowadays people just take out what ever sadistic whim they have and don't bother to think about the consequences to anyone else. find someone they can beat up and and beat them up so they can enjoy themselves no thought of empathy for their victims. In fact the more victims they can make the more powerful and the better they feel.

It's not the cuts and bruises that mess you up it's the constantly being on your guard and never feeling truely safe thats the worst.

the only upside is that eventually through hormones or wisdon or empathy most guys grow out of violence.

 

Sometimes I consider this question myself and I'm starting to wonder whether there's something to be said for certain elements of Sharia law.

I would ban those things classed as hudud (adultery, defamation and use of intoxicants) but permit lesbianism / sodomy within marriage (marriage of two people the same gender would have to be legalised and given equal status to marriage of two people of different genders).

Basically, ban smoking, alcohol, sex outside marriage and false accusation.

Sure, this would be unpopular and basically outlaw TV programmes such as Wife Swap, Tool Acadmey, Jeremy Kyle, etc. but would that be such a bad thing?

Bring on the revolution, I say.

Ps. This message was brought to you thanks to the power of alcohol

 

Sharia law is frontier law: simple, concrete laws dispensed swiftly and efficiently so that people can see justice being done, and can see where the boubdaries lie. It works well in communities that need to survive in tenuous conditions and where rules must be absolutely maintained.

The problem is that accuracy is sacrificed for efficiency. Innocent people can get burned.