This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Does the Internet Create Lynch Mobs?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
Then tell me Sold; how is it that random strangers threatening to kill them, mutilate them, and beat them to death is suppose to be a 'good' thing for these children? Since having something like that happen would just screw them up that much more.
I didn't say it was.
Then what is your stance? You've said before the kids deserve what is coming to them; so where does that fall then?
As I've said, I don't agree with the brats did, but the responses from people on the internet is just *!@#ing insane; and aiming all that venom and malice towards those 12-13 years old, no matter what they were doing, isn't right; morally or otherwise.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Sold- I do. But saying someone deserves it is justifying it. Saying that it shouldn't actually happen for practical reasons has nothing to do with whether or not they deserve it. If I say that I think that all people of a certain group "deserve" to be shot, but we shouldn't actually do it because it would decrease the labor market, does that make my initial statement any less objectionable?
Deserve means that it would be justified if it happened to them. If you feel they deserve it, then you feel it is justified.
You can't feel that it is both deserved and wrong for it to be done to them- you have to pick one. I understand the argument from a "don't do it for practical reasons" standpoint. But you can't say it is both morally deserved, and morally wrong, for verbal harassment to be met with violence.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
You act like a punch in the face is the worst thing that could possibly happen to them.
To a pre-teen kid? Yeah it can be; that doesn't teach them it's 'wrong' to call people names, it just shows them that they'll get hit, so they might decide next time to go with violence.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
You act like a punch in the face is the worst thing that could possibly happen to them.
How is that relevant to the current line of conversation? I am asking how you can simultaneously think they deserve it but it's wrong for it to happen to them (since that seems to be what you're saying rather than what initially though, was that they deserved it but doing it solves nothing so it shouldn't be done from a practical standpoint). That was the question, and it has nothing to do with whether or not one could conceive of worse consequences of their actions that might have happened.
If a woman is mugged in the park, saying that it could have been worse- she could have been raped or murdered- has nothing to so with whether or not it was wrong to mug her, or whether we should be defending that she has the right not to be treated that way.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
It's still not justified; physically assaulting someone for verbal abuse isn't the answer; especially now a days in the world of lawsuits we live in.
Post by
OverZealous
I was going to post an argument, but I don't really understand this thread any more - it's, as pointed out, a mess. It feels as everyone is repeating themselves by now.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I'd just go back to 'Eye for an eye and the world goes blind'; IE revenge never solves anything, and all you do is just make the problem worse if you think a random person hitting another means either one of them will learn a lesson.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- so then we're back to my original understanding. You think they deserve it, but you don't want anyone to actually deliver because it could become something worse, or it could have negative consequences that outweigh the positive.
Here's the confusion I am having with the rest of the discussion:
1) You asked if we had ever experienced any harassment. I said yes, and had seen it, (on a comparable level to what happened to this woman, I'll add now), and I didn't think it justified violence, verbal threats by adults, or putting the kids in fear for their lives.
2) You told me it's not the same as what you're talking about- and outlined a situation where a child was witnessing physical violence, was afraid in their home, was being harassed in their home and threatened. You said that this was what you were talking about. This also happens to be a close approximation of what is now being done to these children by the general public.
I was confused, because the actual situation we're discussing, with this woman, is what I described. The things happening to those kids is what you described. I'm saying that #1 doesn't justify #2 (not talking about repercussions- just that it doesn't even deserve it). You're saying it does, as well as actual violence.
When I said I had experience with #1, you said that wasn't what you were talking about, even though it is much closer to the situation in the article than number 2. Why are you trying to talk about a persistent, adult on child situation rather than the actual situation as why you feel the reaction is justified?
Also, if you really think that schoolyard bullying that I have experience with (and was shown in the video) isn't the "same thing" as the bullying you're talking about deserving physical violence, then why are you advocating that these schoolyard bullies deserve such a punishment if what the did doesn't fit the mold you're describing?
Also, can you understand why I think that #2 is much worse than #1, and why I would think that a child shouldn't be subjected to #2 as punishment for #1?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I'm disagreeing because while you say you don't want them to be beaten, you'd still think it's justified if they got one.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I would; but I don't think violence is ever justified unless it comes to down saving another person's life(and I mean true mortal danger). With a lot of bullies it's far easier to just pop their little bubbles with a well placed word then pop them in the chops.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Soldrethar- We're all on the same page in that we all agree no one should go hurt those kids. However, most of us think it's because their actions aren't enough that they deserve to be hit. You, however, think that they are, but there are other issues that would come up that make it better not to. Adams is debating the contention that being obnoxious verbally is morally deserving of violence.
I can understand why someone would WANT to hurt someone for being a jerk. Just like I can understand why someone would WANT to steal a necklace they can't afford, would want to find a way to cheat the government and have them pay for their lives without working, or would want to kill their ex-husband's new wife. That doesn't mean that any of those actions are justified, or deserved.
I am angry- I think those kids should be punished, I think their parents should yell at them and I'm not opposed to the public voicing that such actions are unacceptable. But there are a lot of things that make me angry, and most of the time I don't think that violence is acceptable in response to them.
People who drive poorly, who spout hate, who are rude to waitstaff, who obsess over child beauty pageants and make their kids miserable- those all make me angry. I don't feel that I should hurt any of them physically. You can be angry, but still know that the punishment has to fit the crime. People who can't control their anger and limit their actions to generally accepted responses end up in jail.
I do feel that violence is a morally appropriate response to violence (in adults, not kids) and sexual assault. If the discussion was about death threats made to cold-blooded killers, child molesters, rapists, people who tortured children or other people who were helpless, I'd be agree that they deserved it. I would say let the legal system handle it, because (like you were saying) letting the public mete out punishment rather than having a system in place leads to many, many problems. But in terms of what they deserve, I think those people would morally deserve whatever corporal or capital punishment they got.
But in THIS case- because it really is schoolyard bullying, because they're kids, because it was non-violent- I don't think that the people who say that the violence is deserved are correct. I also don't think threats of violence against them and their family are deserved.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
I wouldn't, however, call anyone who beat them up for it bad though because it'd they'd be so infuriated that they
couldn't control their anger
and they'd physically lash out at the kids
bad sold.
Bad.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.