Angua wrote:You can argue over whether or not they may have been morally justified in doing it because the leader was a horrible person who kicked kittens and supported the wrong cricket team (though let's be honest, it was probably because he was the person who fired them), but don't try and pretend that this was in any way not torturing and killing someone.
Heisenberg said that the only reason anyone would light anyone on fire was to satisfy a depraved need to inflict suffering. I pointed to a case where this wan't true. No one is saying it wasn't torture and murder.
The Great Hippo wrote:What exact configuration of magical events would we need to cobble together to make this somehow justified? I'm waiting with baited breath to hear exactly how you're going to pull yourself out of the "I Support Lynch Mobs" camp with some sort of fucking One Thousand and One Nights level story-telling shit. Are you going to use genies? Magical unicorns, maybe? Maybe Agent Smith showed up and told them if they didn't light the guy on fire and watch him burn, all their families would die? Spin me a tale, Scheherazade.
A) I'm not saying they are justified. I'm saying that calling this insane and evil without any of the information required to make that determination is presumptuous. This article says that laid-off workers singled someone out and burned them to death. That is literally all the information that the article gave.
B) This event sparks a popular uprising that spreads throughout the globe, starting an endless golden age of humanity.
C) I suck at story telling.
D) Why would I want to pull myself out of the "I Support Lynch Mobs" camp? All options should be on the table at all times.
The Great Hippo wrote:For every case you cite where a rabid lynch mob accomplished a genuine good that extended beyond the heinous act, I'll cite youNitePhyyre wrote:The Great Hippo wrote:Whenever these things accomplish some good, it is only by sheer, stupid, blind luck--not by design.
twentyten1 where they didn't.
I'm sure you could. Sturgeon's Law and all. That doesn't really say much about anything though does it?
The Great Hippo wrote:1) I'm all for interpreting the shit out of events. By all means; let's understand what's going on here and why there's such a brutal, violent response to the firings. When I hear about things like this, I have two responses: Horror, followed by a desire to understand why. But while we're doing that, let's at no juncture whatsoever try to justify those brutal, violent responses. I'm fine with putting things in context; I'm not fine with trying to use that context to justify lighting people on fire and watching them burn. Not unless there is something beneficial to gain from lighting people on fire.
2) I'm really sick and tired of people trying to use the whole 'You don't understand their experiences' defense to justify horrible acts of violence. I don't need to understand their experiences to understand that what they are doing is wrong. I understand that their situation may be horrible, deplorable, and fucked up beyond all measure; I accept that I have no understanding of what it is to live in deplorable poverty where the life of my family can be decided by the presence of a pink slip. These things do not justify acts of atrocity. They don't justify genocide, they don't justify rape, they don't justify torture, they don't justify murder, and I am sick to fucking death of people pretending like they do. The only way you can ever justify violating the rights of another human being is as a means to protect the rights of other human beings. If what they did doesn't accomplish that, then what they did is completely fucking wrong.
The underlined sections: It seems like your position on whether or not these acts are justified depend on the outcome of other acts that will follow from this one. If things go back to the status quo, it was unjustified. If the rest of the management decides to change their policy, it becomes justified. Yet, you have already condemned this as insane and evil. Your position depends on information you do not yet have, cannot yet have, but you have assumed it anyway. This is called "jumping to conclusions".
Thanks for the info about India, it was interesting to get a little bit of context.
A google search for 'Clarence Darrow violence' (no quotes) didn't turn up anything interesting in the first couple of results. What should we be googling?
EDIT: Actually, the wikiquote article on him paints him in an anti-violence/pro-love picture.