foxdemon wrote:This shows the importance of assuming innocence until proven guilty and the need for a fair trial. It also shows why we have police to deal with assault.
You lost your temper and you took justice into your own hands. What you should have done is kept your temper, informed the police and stood as a witness.
foxdemon wrote:Just because your actions were inappropriate and illegal on that night doesn't mean violence is always immoral. Also note that you haven't learned the central lesson which is that you need to avoid imposing a thoughtless judgement on everyone else. You did that by beating that guy up without having established the facts and without any authorisation. And now you are doing it again by declaring all violence is immoral without thinking through the implications. Just because you lack restrain doesn't mean everyone else must be judged by the measure of your flaw.
I deem it immoral because, as I've said, there is nothing moral about it.
But I would call your attention to the highlighted text from your quote.
I just reacted, that night. Without all the facts, and WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.
Something the "alt-lefties" still howling about Charlotesville should ponder...
foxdemon wrote:Under all circumstances? Then you say: last resort. So all circumstances except in the last resort? You seem to be acknowledging the significance of restrain. Could we introduce 'reasonable force' into the discussion too?
As we've already witnessed, when you confront people who are violent by nature, there can be tragic results, such as dead young women.
Let me ask you. Had the nationalist demonstrators in Quebec City not restrained themselves, what do you think would have been the results?
You people need to quit spitting into the wind", and worry about what's REALLY a threat.
The islamification of Europe.