I don't care, fuck society's institutional incentive structures. At some point you do the right thing whether or not you take heat for it.
At some point, you have to have enough moral courage and intestinal fortitude to do what is right regardless of what the potential consequences are from a limited utilitarian analysis. How else are you going to have good times with strong men, if no one's going to step in and be the strong man?
That line isn't necessarily everywhere, but that line needs to be somewhere. It should be somewhere around the public rape and molestation of an 11 25 year old.
Yeah, it does. And you wouldn't see that happen in a rural area. Ever. That's the thing though- it all comes down to where you are. If you're in that city and you see that, and you do something about it, well, it's your arrest and hate crime trial. But if I ever see that in my village, and put a bullet in the guy's brain, I'd be a fucking hero. Though the village I'm in is full of hunters, who would likely beat me to the punch by a long shot.
I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying there is a logical throughline to not.
Logic and heroism are often different paths. In this case, I think there is enough clear and present evidence to send this cretin into his next life, but doing anything less than that will simply make you a criminal AND get him a lighter punishment (this is my biggest concern).
This might be a key point to my perspective. I see heroism as almost entirely defined by: "an individual taking extreme personal responsibility to change or alleviate a dire situation which has been caused by systemic and/or institutional failures."
To me, if you know the system is going to let a rapist continue to rape someone, and you stop them. That is heroic. If you simply stop him before the police get there to stop him, that is just an act of moral goodness.
In my opinion, I see heroism as directly intertwined to an individual's response to a system's actions.
Dude, that's a ridiculous definition of heroism. Stopping a dangerous violent criminal attempting to hurt someone is a heroic act regardless of whether or not the police are on their way.
I think you're confusing my definition of heroism with "commendable" or "praise-worthy".
I don't see heroism as something that you simply should do from a moral perspective, nor do I see it as something that you are obligated to do. You are not a hero because you did your duty. You are also not a hero because you did something that everyone agrees that they would also have done because it was right.
To me, a hero is doing something akin to an impossible task. A hero is going, literally, beyond the call of his duty. In fact, the institution that gave him his duty may have failed, and someone must take personal responsibility to put the weight of the system on their shoulders and orient the whole thing in the right direction. That seems more appropriate to the definition of a "heroic effort".
Heroism isn't a perfect solution though. Running into a burning building to save a child is heroic, but its also likely to get you trapped and need rescuing too.
That's part of my definition. Heroism is never perfect. In fact, by my definition, heroism is an insane effort to compensate for a systemic failure. The fact that someone had to be a hero, is the problem. If the system worked, you don't need heroes at all.
However, the greater evil is we live in a world where there is actual consequence worth hesitating over. That is the true horror.
Agreed, authoritarianism has a nasty habit of promoting the opposite behavior to what would be good.
Some of us wonder why that line of reasoning shouldn't also apply to the President. "Maybe the Federal government doesn't have the ability to intervene under a strict interpretation Federalism if the Governor doesn't request it, and maybe I'll be called a "tyrant" by the people already calling me one; but intervening is the right thing to do."
The state isn't a person though, it is a weapon. It's an extremely dangerous weapon we should always avoid pointing at people. The president is not a person, it is a position within the state to direct and order it's enforcement.
I would rather the people realize how awful communism is, and take the harshest and spiciest red pill in the world, so that they realize that the government can never be trusted to protect them. The government has not fallen. It is alive and well, and it is letting people's livelihoods be destroyed. They must learn that it is their responsibility never to let the government have that kind of power again.
The state is not father, a mother, a brother, a sister, or a friend. Anyone that tells you that wants to enslave you to it. The state is a weapon. Pointing it at yourself is rarely a good decision. Considering it's explosive radius, pointing it anywhere near you is a bad decision.
You are correct that the state is not a parent, sibling or friend. Which is why I also don't think it's the state's responsibility to "let people's livelihoods be destroyed" as an object lesson against communism. The track record of the state trying to "teach the people a lesson" isn't particularly good either.
Which I don't even think is what the Feds are doing. They're intervening when asked. That's not signaling to anyone that the government won't protect them; that's signaling that the government will protect them provided the "right" people are in charge (or the "wrong" people are causing trouble) and ask the right way.
Which is why I also don't think it's the state's responsibility to "let people's livelihoods be destroyed" as an object lesson against communism. The track record of the state trying to "teach the people a lesson" isn't particularly good either.
Your misconstruing my personal opinion with the state's obligation. These are not the same. The state's obligation ends with it's jurisdiction. Republicanism and Federalism are not things you abandon because it feels right, the same goes for the rest of the constitution. The state exists at the behest of the governed. The local government exists at the behest of the locals. If the local government is unprepared to accept federal support, but the locals are, then it is up to the citizenry to address that failing in their local government.
Which I don't even think is what the Feds are doing.
Correct, my opinion isn't state policy.
That's not signaling to anyone that the government won't protect them; that's signaling that the government will protect them provided the "right" people are in charge (or the "wrong" people are causing trouble) and ask the right way.
You've got completely the wrong perspective. The right way is the lawful way, it is the only way for the state to act. The right people are whomever the people place into power there. Federal intervention is a weapon, and can rapidly generate tyranny. This is not selective enforcement by the Federal government based on party affiliation, it is jurisdictional boundaries which are imperative for the survival of any local or state government.
If the local government is not acting in accordance to the will of the people, than it is up to the people alone to alter their government; as the final enforcer of the people's rights are the people themselves. NOT the federal government. Thinking so would be further authoritarianism which would guarantee the thing you claim already exists: arbitrary enforcement based on political affiliation.
I don't care, fuck society's institutional incentive structures. At some point you do the right thing whether or not you take heat for it.
At some point, you have to have enough moral courage and intestinal fortitude to do what is right regardless of what the potential consequences are from a limited utilitarian analysis. How else are you going to have good times with strong men, if no one's going to step in and be the strong man?
That line isn't necessarily everywhere, but that line needs to be somewhere. It should be somewhere around the public rape and molestation of an
1125 year old.25-year-old. At 11 (o'clock).
I can't believe I fucked that up.
None the less, I think my point still stands.
Yeah, it does. And you wouldn't see that happen in a rural area. Ever. That's the thing though- it all comes down to where you are. If you're in that city and you see that, and you do something about it, well, it's your arrest and hate crime trial. But if I ever see that in my village, and put a bullet in the guy's brain, I'd be a fucking hero. Though the village I'm in is full of hunters, who would likely beat me to the punch by a long shot.
Your neighbors: "Norenia you kill stealing faggot! That was mine!"
With a scope
I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying there is a logical throughline to not.
Logic and heroism are often different paths. In this case, I think there is enough clear and present evidence to send this cretin into his next life, but doing anything less than that will simply make you a criminal AND get him a lighter punishment (this is my biggest concern).
This might be a key point to my perspective. I see heroism as almost entirely defined by: "an individual taking extreme personal responsibility to change or alleviate a dire situation which has been caused by systemic and/or institutional failures."
To me, if you know the system is going to let a rapist continue to rape someone, and you stop them. That is heroic. If you simply stop him before the police get there to stop him, that is just an act of moral goodness.
In my opinion, I see heroism as directly intertwined to an individual's response to a system's actions.
Dude, that's a ridiculous definition of heroism. Stopping a dangerous violent criminal attempting to hurt someone is a heroic act regardless of whether or not the police are on their way.
I think you're confusing my definition of heroism with "commendable" or "praise-worthy".
I don't see heroism as something that you simply should do from a moral perspective, nor do I see it as something that you are obligated to do. You are not a hero because you did your duty. You are also not a hero because you did something that everyone agrees that they would also have done because it was right.
To me, a hero is doing something akin to an impossible task. A hero is going, literally, beyond the call of his duty. In fact, the institution that gave him his duty may have failed, and someone must take personal responsibility to put the weight of the system on their shoulders and orient the whole thing in the right direction. That seems more appropriate to the definition of a "heroic effort".
Heroism isn't a perfect solution though. Running into a burning building to save a child is heroic, but its also likely to get you trapped and need rescuing too.
In this case, these people should have jumped in. There is no horror depraved enough to cast shadow over impurity, nor is there a consequence worth letting this go on.
However, the greater evil is we live in a world where there is actual consequence worth hesitating over. That is the true horror.
That's part of my definition. Heroism is never perfect. In fact, by my definition, heroism is an insane effort to compensate for a systemic failure. The fact that someone had to be a hero, is the problem. If the system worked, you don't need heroes at all.
Agreed, authoritarianism has a nasty habit of promoting the opposite behavior to what would be good.
Some of us wonder why that line of reasoning shouldn't also apply to the President. "Maybe the Federal government doesn't have the ability to intervene under a strict interpretation Federalism if the Governor doesn't request it, and maybe I'll be called a "tyrant" by the people already calling me one; but intervening is the right thing to do."
The state isn't a person though, it is a weapon. It's an extremely dangerous weapon we should always avoid pointing at people. The president is not a person, it is a position within the state to direct and order it's enforcement.
I would rather the people realize how awful communism is, and take the harshest and spiciest red pill in the world, so that they realize that the government can never be trusted to protect them. The government has not fallen. It is alive and well, and it is letting people's livelihoods be destroyed. They must learn that it is their responsibility never to let the government have that kind of power again.
The state is not father, a mother, a brother, a sister, or a friend. Anyone that tells you that wants to enslave you to it. The state is a weapon. Pointing it at yourself is rarely a good decision. Considering it's explosive radius, pointing it anywhere near you is a bad decision.
You are correct that the state is not a parent, sibling or friend. Which is why I also don't think it's the state's responsibility to "let people's livelihoods be destroyed" as an object lesson against communism. The track record of the state trying to "teach the people a lesson" isn't particularly good either.
Which I don't even think is what the Feds are doing. They're intervening when asked. That's not signaling to anyone that the government won't protect them; that's signaling that the government will protect them provided the "right" people are in charge (or the "wrong" people are causing trouble) and ask the right way.
Your misconstruing my personal opinion with the state's obligation. These are not the same. The state's obligation ends with it's jurisdiction. Republicanism and Federalism are not things you abandon because it feels right, the same goes for the rest of the constitution. The state exists at the behest of the governed. The local government exists at the behest of the locals. If the local government is unprepared to accept federal support, but the locals are, then it is up to the citizenry to address that failing in their local government.
Correct, my opinion isn't state policy.
You've got completely the wrong perspective. The right way is the lawful way, it is the only way for the state to act. The right people are whomever the people place into power there. Federal intervention is a weapon, and can rapidly generate tyranny. This is not selective enforcement by the Federal government based on party affiliation, it is jurisdictional boundaries which are imperative for the survival of any local or state government.
If the local government is not acting in accordance to the will of the people, than it is up to the people alone to alter their government; as the final enforcer of the people's rights are the people themselves. NOT the federal government. Thinking so would be further authoritarianism which would guarantee the thing you claim already exists: arbitrary enforcement based on political affiliation.
Thank you for pointing that out.
That being said, that makes it slightly less egregious, but my point still stands.