You're viewing part of a thread.
Lol nice try but I don't have to provide you with an alternative for you to attack. You're wasting youre time there.
The point is, even all those hundreds of years ago, we had an alternative to just trusting that crime wouldn't exist, as you suggested was the only alternative.
Other than its state-ness exaplin the difference between state vigilante justice and the exact equivalent done by any other kind of group.
I really, really hope I don't have to explain why it being done by a state doesn't magically make it better, in of itself.
Lol nice try but I don’t have to provide you with an alternative for you to attack. You’re wasting youre time there.
"See, the thing is, I already know I'm right, so I'm not going to waste time by giving you arguments to find flaws in."
I really, really hope I don’t have to explain why it being done by a state doesn’t magically make it better, in of itself.
...you mean why a system of justice that is held liable to a court system is not superior to a system of justice that isn't? yeah, you do have to explain that actually
See, the thing is, I already know I’m right, so I’m not going to waste time by giving you arguments to find flaws in.”
Again, nice try but I'm used to people as slippery as you. What you mean is "you're right, we don't just have to sit around and trust that crime doesn't exist. However, I'm the kind of person who really struggles to back down or walk back even the most wild and silly of things that I imply."
you mean why a system of justice that is held liable to a court system is not superior to a system of justice where people can just go after whomever they want? yeah, you do have to explain that actually
Why would I explain something completely different to what I said to you?
Okay, so if we're not just going to trust that crime isn't going to happen, how are we going to prevent it? I asked you that, straight up, and you said "I'm not going to give you something just for you to poke holes in it. I've dealt with your kind before."
So, are you saying we do or we don't all have to just sit around and trust crime wouldn't exist? Sorry, I couldn't tell which one it was you were saying from that answer.
You say we don't. A cursory reading of the source you cited seems to imply that we do. Obviously, then, a cursory reading of the source is insufficient, and you must have some solution that will prevent crime in the absence of judges and police officers, right?
You linked to this source, so surely you've read it and you understand the author's position better than I do, right?
I still couldn't make out which one is was sorry?
You say we don't have to just hope people don't commit crimes. Let's suppose that's true. How do you plan to prevent them?
I haven't made up my mind on this issue yet. Tell me why you're right.
You know, I'm starting to think that you're not even trying to confirm which one it was and, instead, are just being deliberately evasive while expecting me to confirm things for you, without and hint or irony or self awareness on your part.
Funny. You're the only one who asked me to confirm things. All I asked you was why you thought what you did.
I gave you the easiest task in the world and you still failed.
Goodbye, troll.
You can't fail something you didn't try and you weren't prepared to answer any questions from me. Its just you sheer arrogance that makes you think you can demand answers from someone while giving none.
All you had to do was walk an obviously, undeniably invalid argument and you wouldn't do it.
I just mirrored your behaviour and you called me a troll, without a hint of irony. Thats all that happened here.