Who is more pernicious... wily thugs or corrupt judiciary & venal law "enforcement"?

[bruto]

I did not vote in the poll because I believe the poll is not well done. It omits, for one thing, the possibility of equivalence or equality between two varieties of crimes, and also the possibility that it all depends on what the crimes are.

From a philosophical point of view, I'd be willing to say that the institutionalizing of government crime is worse than just about anything else, and that the Trump administration's effort in that direction was vile and obscene to the point that discussing it makes polite discourse difficult.

On the other hand, I might also be willing to say I'd rather have a government that picks my pockets from time to time and also prevents marauding bandits from torching my house and raping my children, than to have a government that does neither.

I think perhaps I find life more complicated than some, with few moral choices unalloyed, and at the risk of overstepping the bounds, I would also opine that while the original post constitutes a grand rant, and one with which many would agree, it falls short as an argument.

 

[mumblethrax]

Strong Russell Brand vibes.

 

[Myriad]

I don't judge perniciousness by what your job description is, but by what you do. Journalists and prosecutors bleat about "betrayal of trust" for some kinds of criminal cases, but that's about opportunity for misbehavior rather than consequences thereof. If your stuff is stolen by a random burglar, it's just as gone as if it had been stolen by your house sitter who was also a lifelong friend, Eagle Scout, Congressional Medal of Honor awardee, Supreme Court Justice, and President of the Neighborhood Watch.

 

[Leumas]

This is bit, right? I feel like I'm losing my mind.

Thank you for coming back to comment yet again... I appreciate the interest in the OP, thus disproving the false claims in other comments.

However... I see that despite your clear interest in the OP and taking the time and effort to comment again, you have not voted over the issue of the OP.... namely.... who is more insidiously and egregiously pernicious...

a thug with the authority and power to do his thuggery as a judge and law enforcement member....​

or

a thug who despite his thuggery is still not authorized to do his villainy... except of course because of the aiding and abetting and shielding and facilitation by the villains pretending to be judges serving the community?​

Or maybe you would care to select one of the other three options???

I am really interested in what a forum repeatedly and emphatically claimed to be membered in the substantial majority by none other than atheist skeptics, would say about this insidious issue...

It is exceedingly intriguing, why so far two votes only despite 393 views and 18 posts???

And one vote, from a skeptic atheist (most likely according to the repeated emphatic assertions) thinks thuggery and corrupted power is good for society.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I appreciate the interest in the OP, thus disproving the false claims in other comments.

Again, could you please point out exactly where anyone claimed that the number of people who might respond you your OP or its poll was zero?

No one ever claimed that no one would ever respond. A few observations have been tendered in regard to the lack of enthusiasm shown for your poll, and the fact that, as of now, only 0.85% of those who have viewed the thread have responded to the poll would actually support those observations.

How could someone with such an expansive lexicon have such poor reading comprehension?

 

[Foster Zygote]

And one vote, from a skeptic atheist (most likely according to the repeated emphatic assertions) thinks thuggery and corrupted power is good for society.

Well, obviously. I mean, it's simply not possible that someone could respond without taking your poll absolutely seriously. Why, it's inconceivable!

 

[Leumas]

I did not vote in the poll because I believe the poll is not well done. It omits, for one thing, the possibility of equivalence or equality between two varieties of crimes, and also the possibility that it all depends on what the crimes are.

From a philosophical point of view, I'd be willing to say that the institutionalizing of government crime is worse than just about anything else, and that the Trump administration's effort in that direction was vile and obscene to the point that discussing it makes polite discourse difficult.

On the other hand, I might also be willing to say I'd rather have a government that picks my pockets from time to time and also prevents marauding bandits from torching my house and raping my children, than to have a government that does neither.

I think perhaps I find life more complicated than some, with few moral choices unalloyed, and at the risk of overstepping the bounds, I would also opine that while the original post constitutes a grand rant, and one with which many would agree, it falls short as an argument.

Thanks for taking the time and effort and interest in posting a second lengthy and detailed "grand rant" about the OP... and thus disproving further, the by now very evidently false claims in other comments.

I did not vote in the poll because I believe the poll is not well done. It omits, for one thing, the possibility of equivalence or equality between two varieties of crimes, and also the possibility that it all depends on what the crimes are.

I take that point.... thanks ... so what you are saying is that criminal thugs and the traitorous lying judges and venal supposed law enforcers who aid and abet them are equivalent in their pernicious harm on a society.

But you also are saying the opposite too... it is evident that you could have voted option 5... no???

Nevertheless... thanks ... point taken... however, I disagree... I think an overt criminal is slightly less of a thug and less despicable than a covert one who uses his power to aid and abet the thugs while pretending to be a pillar of society.

 

[Thermal]

I feel like thuggery gets a bad rap. I mean, you know where you stand with them, and you tend to be on equal footing. Pretty democratic, in a law of the jungle sense. The same can't be said of the executive, legislative, or judicial arms. Wily thugs keep order at a very base level, and keep you on your toes. A lawyer views you as prey that can bankrupt or incarcerate your ass, while a thug will just make off with your wallet or watch.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Thanks for taking the time and effort and interest in posting a second lengthy and detailed "grand rant" about the OP... and thus disproving further, the by now very evidently false claims in other comments.

So we've reached the point where you're just going to pretend people said what you want them to say. Even though nobody ever said anything that could be disproved by anything that bruto has written in this thread, you're just going to ignore that fact and Black Knight your way to invincibility.

 

[bruto]

Thanks for taking the time and effort and interest in posting a second lengthy and detailed "grand rant" about the OP... and thus disproving further, the by now very evidently false claims in other comments.





I take that point.... thanks ... so what you are saying is that criminal thugs and the traitorous lying judges and venal supposed law enforcers who aid and abet them are equivalent in their pernicious harm on a society.

But you also are saying the opposite too... it is evident that you could have voted option 5... no???

Nevertheless... thanks ... point taken... however, I disagree... I think an overt criminal is slightly less of a thug and less despicable than a covert one who uses his power to aid and abet and the thugs while pretending to be a pillar of society.

I supppose I could have voted #5, but it implies that I can never decide, or that the fault of indecision lies not in the quality of presentation but in some unspecified inability on my part to decide, and that is not, I think, the issue.

I think in a general sense it's worse to be a hidden criminal than an overt one, but it really does depend on the crime and on what your vantage point is.

If someone burns down my house, the distinction is not very meaningful and if they kill me whatever meaning it has for observers is lost to me.

You can get all Kantian here and claim that wrong is wrong no matter what, but absolutes and I do not get along well.

 

[Craig4]

USA Politics ?

This seems to me, to be a Community issue.

Are you sure? It feels like we're supposed to answer "Jesus".

 

[Craig4]

He did what with Chinese food now?

These things aren't meant to be taken literally. He's referring to all appetizers on takeout menus.

 

[Spyke]

Was it covered on Troy and Abed in the Morning?

No, but I feel like it should have been.

Before it was moved here... it was in the Religion and Philosophy sub-forum where I put it since it deals with




I put it in the Philosophy and religion sub-forum because as can be clearly discerned by the most cursory reading, it is about Philosophical concerns about immorality and unethicality and corruption and criminality and betrayal and dishonor in carrying out one's duty faithfully.

Not about Politics...

The poll is about the philosophical implication upon morality of corrupt immoral judging and law enforcement compared to the actual perpetrators of crimes.

It is the realm of Philosophy and religions... even the detestable Buybull has laws prohibiting corrupt judges and law enforcers.

It is an issue that impacts the morale and morality and soul of any society of any kind or size.

I gave an example from current affairs that is on the news recently... but it is only an incidental EXAMPLE to demonstrate the gravity and perniciousness of the matter... but the example itself is not the issue.

I didn't realize that, I apologize.

Are you sure? It feels like we're supposed to answer "Jesus".

I have no opinion on that.

 

[Norman Alexander]

You know you could have shortened the OP question to just one question: Who is more corrupt in the USA, the crooks or the judges?

See? Far fewer words, far less angst as to where it belongs.

 

[Leumas]

Let's make this simpler

The poll results are fascinating so far.... not just for the nature of the choices taken by the few who did bother to vote (fascinating)... but more so by the number of votes (4) out of 616 views... and by the nature of the commentary the Poll has roused up.

And judging by some of the comments... it is evident that the Poll is too hard to understand... I guess that is my fault.

So let's make this a lot simpler by using an analogy that perhaps most can identify with...

Who do you think is more dishonest and despicable and pernicious...

school bullies...​

or

school principles and teachers who suspend or expel the bullies' victims for punching the bullies back while defending themselves... but.... do nothing about the bullies' bullying​

Now compare the

school bullies to the criminals and thugs in the OP​

and the

despicable school officials to the venal law enforcers in the OP​

I hope this analogy will help some have an easier time voting on the poll:

Who is more pernicious... wily thugs or corrupt judiciary & venal law "enforcement"?​

.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

as a Consequentialist I will tell you:

I can't give a definite answer, as I can't set up am A / B scenario in which I either punish only the one or only the other type and observe the results in a statistically meaningful way.

 

[Leumas]

I don't judge perniciousness by what your job description is, but by what you do. Journalists and prosecutors bleat about "betrayal of trust" for some kinds of criminal cases, but that's about opportunity for misbehavior rather than consequences thereof. If your stuff is stolen by a random burglar, it's just as gone as if it had been stolen by your house sitter who was also a lifelong friend, Eagle Scout, Congressional Medal of Honor awardee, Supreme Court Justice, and President of the Neighborhood Watch.

I supppose I could have voted #5, but it implies that I can never decide, or that the fault of indecision lies not in the quality of presentation but in some unspecified inability on my part to decide, and that is not, I think, the issue.

I think in a general sense it's worse to be a hidden criminal than an overt one, but it really does depend on the crime and on what your vantage point is.

If someone burns down my house, the distinction is not very meaningful and if they kill me whatever meaning it has for observers is lost to me.

You can get all Kantian here and claim that wrong is wrong no matter what, but absolutes and I do not get along well.

as a Consequentialist I will tell you:

I can't give a definite answer, as I can't set up am A / B scenario in which I either punish only the one or only the other type and observe the results in a statistically meaningful way.

Who do you think is more pernicious... a traitorous Captain... or an enemy soldier?






.

 

[Craig4]

Who do you think is more pernicious... a traitorous Captain... or an enemy soldier?






.

Are you familiar with the term, "Push Poll"?

 

[Foster Zygote]

The poll results are fascinating so far....

Yes, it's most fascinating that the crowd says nothing of the likes of Samson the Sadducee Strangler, Silus the Syrian Assassin, several seditious scribes from Caesarea, etcetera, and chooses rather to focus on the likes of Woger, Wodewick, Weuben, Weginald and Bwian.

I wonder what's going on here?

not just for the nature of the choices taken by the few who did bother to vote (fascinating)... but more so by the number of votes (4) out of 616 views... and by the nature of the commentary the Poll has roused up.

What the (as of now) 0.7% response rate tells me is that pretty much everyone agrees that it's just a badly designed poll.

And judging by some of the comments... it is evident that the Poll is too hard to understand... I guess that is my fault.

Please allow me to disabuse you of the notion that your poll is even remotely challenging to comprehend. Quite the contrary. The low number of responses is rather a result of the transparency of the poll's true purpose, and the fact that most people don't want to play. Of course, a few people are always going to answer "wewease Woger!", to the delight of the crowd.

So let's make this a lot simpler by using an analogy that perhaps most can identify with...

I have another analogy that's even easier for everyone here to relate to. It's similar to yours, but involves members of an internet forum and its moderation team. Is that, hypothetically, what you're going for?

 

[Thermal]

...And judging by some of the comments... it is evident that the Poll is too hard to understand... I guess that is my fault...

It's not that the poll and OP, and the "simpler" clarifications are hard to understand. It's that they are underthought, and borderline meaningless.

What is a wily thug? What is a bully? What level of corruption are you talking about?

If what you mean is to ask "what is better, an honest adversary or a dishonest/self serving ally?", that's one question, dealing with the nature of betrayal.

If you mean to ask if we are societally hurt more by our overt criminals than those we afford power to and who abuse it for their own ends, that's another.

If you mean to ask if we should have higher standards of behavior and penalties for those we entrust with power, that is another.

There is intersectionality and overlap between them, but the poll question and it's elaborations remain basically unanswerable. None of the choices are clear y/n. They are too vague.