4 ms·

> But if a random stranger sees a rape, I have no issue with him killing the rapist, whether in the act or after. IT does not matter whether he was harmed himse

> But if a random stranger sees a rape, I have no issue with him killing the rapist, whether in the act or after. IT does not matter whether he was harmed himself or not. I take issue with this as an innocent bystander, because I don’t know what you know if the transgression happened previously to me happening upon you killing them. This is traumatic and would lead me to believe you are the aggressor, because you’re going off half cocked. You seem like a well meaning unstable person. I don’t feel safer by having you around. I don’t find your actions reasonable or predictable because you are acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Victims deserve justice, not summary judgement administered on their behalf. It’s not your place to do this if you didn’t see it happening in front of you, and even if you did, you have no right to take a life when one is not at risk. Please don’t use my post to advocate for violence, which you have been doing all thread. If you harm me or mine in your reckless pursuit of misguided justice, I will hold you personally responsible and will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. You’re not a good person in my moral estimation. Please consider that you can be honestly mistaken. You could even be a victim of a psyop, where folks posing as victims agitate others around you and themselves, just so that they can run to you and claim victimhood, knowing you would strike first and ask questions later or never. Your moral theory doesn’t account for bad actors posing as victims so that you will white knight on their behalf, essentially outsourcing their own violence to you under false auspices. What’s more, you may hurt innocent bystanders physically, emotionally, or psychologically by dispensing violence in their presence, regardless of whether the violence is justified or not. That is on you. You’re not qualified to do so. You don’t have standing to intervene unless you have a reasonable likelihood of knowing the facts of the matter, and your words in this thread lead me to believe you aren’t a reasonable person to be around. > And morally, it's even more clear cut. If at any point his aggression reached a level which justified death as proportional punishment (which it did), then he kept being deserving of that punishment until, well, punished. You are right that they deserve punishment all the same, but once the moment has passed, the punishment is not the victim’s to dispense. In fact, it is a crime to act with intent to harm or kill unless you are defending yourself against clear and present danger. This disqualifies past acts of violence against the victim, as the danger is not precipitous, and so the response need not be either. If you killed someone in front of me and then said that you are justified because they killed your mom yesterday, I am going to remove myself from your life and report you to the authorities for premeditated murder. You don’t know how any of this works, because you think two wrongs make a right. Get help.

aspenmayer 1y ago
> Get help. This might seem harsh or personal, but I don’t mean to direct this entirely at you, or even a little bit, but at the collective you, at your argument, and the logical and illogical conclusions that believing as you do can lead you to arrive upon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you What I mean is this: self-help justice just doesn’t work. You will likely not be seen to be a good actor in the moment due to others not knowing what you know, nor can you count on them to share your opinion on proper interventions in exigent circumstances then or after the dust settles. You can be right or wrong, but I care about you. I hope that comes across. I don’t want you to suffer injustice, nor do I want you to intervene in such a way that now we have two or more problems instead of one fewer or none at all. I don’t want you to be dead wrong, or even dead right. I want you to live to fight another day, and I want you to need never raise arms against another, especially for cause. It’s not fair, but that’s life. Discretion is the better part of valor. Self-help justice is the tail wagging the dog. I have been in a position to engage in the very actions you advise or advocate for, arguably for cause, and I had to actively engage in principled inaction instead, and I only narrowly avoided ruin despite my best efforts. I literally have done nothing wrong, and still been found fault with until others could properly adjudicate wrongdoing, and found me concomitantly lacking in culpability. I know whereof I speak. If you find yourself in a position to decide whether you must engage in self-help justice, I will trust your judgement on the matter, but I may also stand in judgement of you all the same after the fact. I myself ought to have asked for help sooner than I did in an unforeseeable interpersonal emergency I was unable to set right despite my best efforts. I’ve been to the brink, came back, and got the tshirt. Ask me how I know. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45013205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45013205
- martin-t 1y ago
  > I don’t mean to direct this entirely at you I don't buy this. "Get help" is a well-known gaslighting tactic used by abusers to discredit their target. It does not make sense in a "generic" sense. > You will likely not be seen to be a good actor in the moment due to others not knowing what you know, nor can you count on them to share your opinion on proper interventions in exigent circumstances then or after the dust settles. Of course, because the others don't have the same standard of proof, until and unless I also provide it. This is why I talk about provability vs reality. All I am saying is if the state or anybody else gets involved it has to take previous actions into account. --- People seem to get uncomfortable when talking about killing so let's talk about stealing instead. This is the same as the right to steal back. It's very common for police to not investigate theft. It's also common for people to put GPS trackers in their bikes or tracking SW in their electronics, exactly for this case. But sometimes when people steal their property back (again, assuming they have sufficient proof it's the same item, not just the same model), it happens that the original thief then tries using the police against them. This is wrong. The law should match morality, when something is mine, it's still mine even if it's currently in a thief's possession, and I have the right to use my property as I see fit. And of course, it gets more complicated if the thief managed to resell it in the meanwhile and we can discuss how to maximize justice given uncertainly and lack of provability for all parties involved. But that requires not rejecting the idea in the first place based on "it's complicated". > nor do I want you to intervene in such a way that now we have two or more problems This reads as concern trolling. I am well-aware of the potential for confusion of aggressor and victim. it's the hardest part of true justice. Aggressors always have the same tools as victims. That's why I am not saying people should go out and do the morally right thing now (as you say advocating violence), I am instead saying we should figure out better rules for how to resolve the situations given each party's imperfect information and the law should chance to align with morality.

aspenmayer 1y ago

> Get help. This might seem harsh or personal, but I don’t mean to direct this entirely at you, or even a little bit, but at the collective you, at your argument, and the logical and illogical conclusions that believing as you do can lead you to arrive upon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you What I mean is this: self-help justice just doesn’t work. You will likely not be seen to be a good actor in the moment due to others not knowing what you know, nor can you count on them to share your opinion on proper interventions in exigent circumstances then or after the dust settles. You can be right or wrong, but I care about you. I hope that comes across. I don’t want you to suffer injustice, nor do I want you to intervene in such a way that now we have two or more problems instead of one fewer or none at all. I don’t want you to be dead wrong, or even dead right. I want you to live to fight another day, and I want you to need never raise arms against another, especially for cause. It’s not fair, but that’s life. Discretion is the better part of valor. Self-help justice is the tail wagging the dog. I have been in a position to engage in the very actions you advise or advocate for, arguably for cause, and I had to actively engage in principled inaction instead, and I only narrowly avoided ruin despite my best efforts. I literally have done nothing wrong, and still been found fault with until others could properly adjudicate wrongdoing, and found me concomitantly lacking in culpability. I know whereof I speak. If you find yourself in a position to decide whether you must engage in self-help justice, I will trust your judgement on the matter, but I may also stand in judgement of you all the same after the fact. I myself ought to have asked for help sooner than I did in an unforeseeable interpersonal emergency I was unable to set right despite my best efforts. I’ve been to the brink, came back, and got the tshirt. Ask me how I know. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45013205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45013205

martin-t 1y ago
> I don’t mean to direct this entirely at you I don't buy this. "Get help" is a well-known gaslighting tactic used by abusers to discredit their target. It does not make sense in a "generic" sense. > You will likely not be seen to be a good actor in the moment due to others not knowing what you know, nor can you count on them to share your opinion on proper interventions in exigent circumstances then or after the dust settles. Of course, because the others don't have the same standard of proof, until and unless I also provide it. This is why I talk about provability vs reality. All I am saying is if the state or anybody else gets involved it has to take previous actions into account. --- People seem to get uncomfortable when talking about killing so let's talk about stealing instead. This is the same as the right to steal back. It's very common for police to not investigate theft. It's also common for people to put GPS trackers in their bikes or tracking SW in their electronics, exactly for this case. But sometimes when people steal their property back (again, assuming they have sufficient proof it's the same item, not just the same model), it happens that the original thief then tries using the police against them. This is wrong. The law should match morality, when something is mine, it's still mine even if it's currently in a thief's possession, and I have the right to use my property as I see fit. And of course, it gets more complicated if the thief managed to resell it in the meanwhile and we can discuss how to maximize justice given uncertainly and lack of provability for all parties involved. But that requires not rejecting the idea in the first place based on "it's complicated". > nor do I want you to intervene in such a way that now we have two or more problems This reads as concern trolling. I am well-aware of the potential for confusion of aggressor and victim. it's the hardest part of true justice. Aggressors always have the same tools as victims. That's why I am not saying people should go out and do the morally right thing now (as you say advocating violence), I am instead saying we should figure out better rules for how to resolve the situations given each party's imperfect information and the law should chance to align with morality.