Morrigan
Crone of War
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 8,262
Corruption and criminality != "political disagreement"
I laughed, too. Screw that piece of feces, he deserves worse.
Berlosconi beaten
- Thread starter PogoPedant
- Start date
Corruption and criminality != "political disagreement"
I laughed, too. Screw that piece of feces, he deserves worse.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
In that case, why have you not organized a lynch mob, complete with pitch forks, torches, and nooses?
If assault is OK with you, what isn't? DR
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
In that case, why have you not organized a lynch mob, complete with pitch forks, torches, and nooses?
DR
Hey what if it was his daughter sleeping with the guy?
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
Given that Silvio's filthy rich, his problem is exactly what???
(See the movie "Arthur" to get a veiled ref to a joke here ... a line by Buddy Hackett)
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Given that Silvio's filthy rich, his problem is exactly what???
(See the movie "Arthur" to get a veiled ref to a joke here ... a line by Buddy Hackett)
It is more that you have made many comments about taking personal vengeance and now you are all about the rule of law. The man is a criminal who ran for prime minister so that he could get legal immunity.
Morrigan
Crone of War
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 8,262
In that case, why have you not organized a lynch mob, complete with pitch forks, torches, and nooses?
DR
Strawman much? Sod off.
Brilliant reparte. ! Think much?
No strawman. If you think that without sitting on a jury that you have heard both sides and have the ability to judge Berlesone - then you are an unreasoning, biased bigot. If you believe that treating any non-violent person to a savage beating is reasonable, just and deserved, then you are an anti-social psychopath. The number of ppl on this thread who are actually gleeful about this is attack is a measure of their incivility, inhumanity, and sadism.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
I can't feel much sorrow that a politician in bed with a criminal group as violent as the Mafia gets beaten up. You keep company with dogs, you get fleas.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
If seeing a scumbag like Berlosconi get a small fraction of what is coming to him makes me incivil,inhumane and sadistic I will willingly accept those labels.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
It's called the Clarence Darrow syndrome. No matter how big a scumbag a guy obviously is, somebody thinks he is being falsely accused and had to play Big Time Defense Attoney and defend him.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
I love Italian Politics.
It never seems to get any better. Italian Politics is constantly a big mess.
It serves a useful purpose,though: No matter how screwed up the political system in your country is, you can look at Italy and say "yeah, our system is screwed up, but Italy's is worse".
It never seems to get any better. Italian Politics is constantly a big mess.
It serves a useful purpose,though: No matter how screwed up the political system in your country is, you can look at Italy and say "yeah, our system is screwed up, but Italy's is worse".
If you are really "against violence" than you'd be against what happened to him. Period.
This crap about "not shedding any tears" is just rationalization for the same thing as being happy it happened to him.
People act like things like tolerance and being against violence are things that have a range of acceptable rationales for when it's ok to throw those ideals out the window. Then you are in fact NOT tolerant, and NOT against violence.
It's like being somewhat unique, or being a little bit pregnant.
Anytime someone says "I'm against <whatever>, but..." that's a red flag. They are about to demonstrate how they are, in fact, not really against whatever it was.
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
A lot of people seem to be getting up on their moral high horse over this.
It's like seeing the school yard bully finally get a black eye.
It's like seeing the school yard bully finally get a black eye.
If someone is "against violence", then when they hear of an act of violence, they should be against it, regardless of circumstance. That is consistent.
Regardless of circumstance. Regardless of how bad the person was. If that even enters into the mind, then the very idea of being against violence goes right out the window. Then you are tacitly admitting that you can consider violence acceptable in certain circumstances, if the person was a bad person.
I'm not even stating my own position in this regard, I'm responding to the OP. I personally consider myself against violence as well. But I'll admit that I may be overlooking things which may contradict my own feeling on the matter.. enough that I am wrong to think that I am "against violence", on the whole. I'm open to be shown to be wrong in that regard.
You can call it a high horse, but one thing that bothers me most in this world these days are people who (also on their own high horse) constantly proclaim their own tolerance and enlightenment, and belittle the lack of tolerance and enlightenment in people like myself who do not share their world view. So I seek to show them where they are wrong, and deluding themselves.
Regardless of circumstance. Regardless of how bad the person was. If that even enters into the mind, then the very idea of being against violence goes right out the window. Then you are tacitly admitting that you can consider violence acceptable in certain circumstances, if the person was a bad person.
I'm not even stating my own position in this regard, I'm responding to the OP. I personally consider myself against violence as well. But I'll admit that I may be overlooking things which may contradict my own feeling on the matter.. enough that I am wrong to think that I am "against violence", on the whole. I'm open to be shown to be wrong in that regard.
You can call it a high horse, but one thing that bothers me most in this world these days are people who (also on their own high horse) constantly proclaim their own tolerance and enlightenment, and belittle the lack of tolerance and enlightenment in people like myself who do not share their world view. So I seek to show them where they are wrong, and deluding themselves.
Last edited:
Morrigan
Crone of War
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 8,262
Perhaps. I for one am not "against violence in all circumstances", and have never stated that I was, so I couldn't care less for moral highgrounds.
That said, I'm pretty sure that when someone says they're "against violence", there's always a bunch of caveats that apply. Scarcely anyone is "against violence of any kind in every single circumstances ever imagined".
That said, I'm pretty sure that when someone says they're "against violence", there's always a bunch of caveats that apply. Scarcely anyone is "against violence of any kind in every single circumstances ever imagined".
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
I think that Mark Twain's comment about never having murdered anybody but having got a great deal of pleasure reading certain obituaries applies here.
That's all your OPINION, and based on nothing more than 3rd hand speculation and one-sided press reports. The problem is your willingness to see others harmed based on clearly biased reviews and a very superficial case without any possibility of hearing the other side of that position fairly. What if someone read a news story that your 65yo Mom is a scummy cheater, believes it, and then beats all the teeth out of her head with a brick. Is that OK with you too ? It's every bit as justified as your position.
Both you and that believer are the same sort of act-on-=ingorance types; you'd make a fine pair of BrownShirts. No need for a trial when you "know" the "real truth" as presented in the supermarket tabloids and cable news.
I think the Italians use Greece as a negative example.
Perhaps the Greeks look to the Turks.
No high horse - I'd even defend you against a public beating or having your teeth broken off, even tho' by your self-admitted lack of any sense of justice, morality or civility makes it quite deserved IMO.
Perhaps. I for one am not "against violence in all circumstances", and have never stated that I was, so I couldn't care less for moral highgrounds.
That said, I'm pretty sure that when someone says they're "against violence", there's always a bunch of caveats that apply. Scarcely anyone is "against violence of any kind in every single circumstances ever imagined".
No I'm not against all violence. Self defense is a clear exception. When there is no on-going violence and when there is a possibility of a legtimate civil or criminal case against tthe alleged perp - then violence cannot be justified. So yes, blowing up Hitler or shooting Pol Pot can be justified. The Nigerian in the plane seat next to you starts shooting a chemical reagent into his explosive undies - so yes, poke his eye out. If you are directly threatened w/ physical violence and have no realistic chance of getting public support (say Saddam tells you you'll be killed if you don't XXX) then violence can be justified.
The Italian court system seems troubled, but not broken, Berlescone seems to not be part of any on-going violence. Excellent chance he'll eventually end up in prison.