Liberals

[Grok]

Unless I am misunderstanding, they are not wishing to commit criminal acts, but forming a party to get laws changed so that their desired activities, although to us perverse, are no longer criminal.  As Arta said, you don't want to react by suppressing that speech, but by speaking loudly and voting against it.

Throughout our own history all sorts of things were illegal that are legal now, AND things illegal now that were legal before.  You cannot possibly tell me that you, Invert (since you posted this), believe that today's existing law is equivalent precisely with your morality.  If you were, I can only draw the conclusion that you are extremely fortunately to live in a country state and locality where the laws were tailor-made for your existence, OR that you have formed your own morality based on existing law.

And what do you do with your morality with the laws change?  Thirty years ago homosexuality was perverse, illegal, and people went to jail for life due to repeated offenses of committing those crimes.  Now they are no longer crimes, and conservatives and liberals alike are defending the rights of homosexuals to have consensual adult sex.

As Adron pointed out, this is not so obviously a liberal or conservative issue.  Besides I'd think that forming a party to address the laws through the correct channels is much more a conservative thing than liberal.  In my experience liberals try to get lawmakers to change laws for them by massive demonstrations, not by political activity.

[CrAz3D]

Yes, and? What if there hadn't been? What if they thought a crime was being committed and it was actually role play or something?

They would've been stupid for role playing a physical assault/attempted rape play in a bar at night...

[Rule]

Yes, and? What if there hadn't been? What if they thought a crime was being committed and it was actually role play or something?

They would've been stupid for role playing a physical assault/attempted rape play in a bar at night...

Does someone deserve to be beaten senseless and uncontrollably for being stupid in a moderately harmless way?

Do you really need someone to explain to you why letting mobs of people dole out "justice" would be an horrible idea? 
a) Different small groups of people will have different ideas about what is or is not a punishable crime. 
b) In the scenario you described, the mob had very little information (even though it may not seem like it to you), about the situation they took it upon themselves to punish someone for.  Hence, it is not unlikely that they will make a mistake. 
c) Who is to decide what is sufficient punishment for what crime?
etc.

By your logic, someone could go and beat your ex-girlfriend, and claim that it is justice.  In that person's books,
her crime could be punishable by death.  Again, by your standards, this is justice.  Perhaps now you are starting to see why we must have a regulated justice system and why yielding to a mob mentality, regardless of whether you feel it is righteous or not, is an extremely bad idea.

Depending on the details of the situation you described, I believe anyone who did more than to prevent the rape from happening (and notifying authorities) should face legal repurcussions for his/her actions. 

Really, you ought to think more about the big picture before forming such strong opinions on these sorts of things... It's not the first time I've seen it happen.

[Grok]

Rule is correct beyond measure.  When police interview witnesses to a crime, every witness saw something different.  Turn down the lights, turn up the music, give people beer, and ask them to be judge jury and executioner of an alleged crime in a bar?  Holy shit.

Crazed, are you a big fan of Steven Segal movies or something?  I really don't know how to read your perception of the world, but I tend to box you in as a neo-fascist.  It seems you want everyone in the world to perform their daily lives in precise accordance with a single standard measure, which happens to be the same as the one you think is correct, or have them extremely punished and call it appropriate for their sins.  Is this far off?

[CrAz3D]

a) This is a specific act I'm talking about rape attacks are all punichable.  And, since alot of rapists get away, isnt it good that this one was stopped?  They did a civil service, which to an extent would be required by some of them.

b) The mob heard a woman screaming & saw a man attacking her...in a bathroom in a bar, what other conclusion is there to draw?  Just sit by on the stool & call the police?  I'm sure the attacker would've had enough time to escape once he'd been disovered & that the police were on the way.

c) Society is who has always decided what punishment for what crime (execution is currently being introduced in S. Carolina for repeat child molesters).  They were society, they took it upon themselves to protect the woman, they possibly saved her from death or being raped.  In the same situation I'm sure you would try to stop the attacker as well, if not, well, I don't know what to say.




My ex didn't attack me, I don't see a real comparisson, I just see you trying to get me worked up & explode...boom, oooh. 


And again, the situation gives your a woman in a bathroom screaming, people checked on her & saw she was being attacked, they stopped him.  Civil service, a duty to help another human in need, thats what it was.

[Grok]

I saw a new article where some lady was being assaulted in a bar, 20 people from that bar went and beat the hell out of her attacker...its real justice.

Except I'm pretty sure THIS is what you said -- not that they stopped the attack, but "beat the hell out of her attacker... its real justice."

What you're saying now is entirely different, that people acted responsibly and stopped a crime from being continued.  That is not justice, that is intervention.  Do you see the difference in what you said then and now?

[CrAz3D]

They stopped it from happening by beating him up (they probably didnt have to go as far as they did, but he didnt die or anything, so meh).  I didnt say one wasn't true, both were true.

[Rule]

a) This is a specific act I'm talking about rape attacks are all punichable.  And, since alot of rapists get away, isnt it good that this one was stopped?  They did a civil service, which to an extent would be required by some of them.

What Grok said.

b) The mob heard a woman screaming & saw a man attacking her...in a bathroom in a bar, what other conclusion is there to draw?  Just sit by on the stool & call the police?  I'm sure the attacker would've had enough time to escape once he'd been disovered & that the police were on the way.

If it is reasonable to assume that someone is in situation where he/she is in serious danger, then (in my opinion), the best action would be intervene to try and remove the danger.  If a mistake is made, (e.g. a couple is drunk and roleplaying and the woman *wanted* to be beaten, etc), then apologize and leave (and at least no-one is seriously injured).  It is irresponsible and dangerous to take "justice" into your own hands and dole out punishment yourself.   As I said earlier, anyone who seriously injured the alleged rapist should be punished by law.

c) Society is who has always decided what punishment for what crime (execution is currently being introduced in S. Carolina for repeat child molesters).  They were society, they took it upon themselves to protect the woman, they possibly saved her from death or being raped.

We're not talking about society.  We're talking about mobs of people.  There is most certainly going to be conflicts between what individuals think is a punishable crime, and what society on the whole agrees is a punishable crime.

My ex didn't attack me, I don't see a real comparisson, I just see you trying to get me worked up & explode...boom, oooh. 

Nope, she cheated on you.  And if someone's "woman" cheats on "her man," in many middle eastern countries, he is applauded if he beats her to death -- to them that's justice.  Wait a minute, didn't you say thay you align your views on this with the middle east?

that isnt really extreme...most societies in the middle east would do it, I think.

I'm making a valid comparison, and showing you why it is irresponsible to give in to a mob mentality when deciding to punish someone for a "crime."  Without regulation, more mistakes will be made, ordinarily reasonable people may seriously hurt someone in the heat of the moment, and there would be major public
disarray over what certain mobs see as a crime.

[CrAz3D]

The government in the middle east would hurt the dude...the government is whom doles(?) out punishments like finger removal & such