Kenny Kan » Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:11 pm wrote:Racist, bigot and all the other fascist names under the sun have been thrown my way Andy - so don't get hung up on the pinko-lefto ad-hom you've been pigeon hold with.
yeah, but they're right
So, Andy, back to the topic - the Judge who somehow had the audacity to say to a burglar that he was courageous for breaking into people's homes defies belief. Only and in my view, only could someone attempt to say something THAT provocative in this day and age and hope to get away with it such is that norms have almost been reversed by this neo-Marxist thought (that's pervaded society unconsciously for decades bringing people up believing perpatrators are the victims and vice-versa) and everything is undergone with red-taped political correctness, Andy.
You stated it was courageous to break into homes Andy?
Would it be fair to say then, that you think it would be a courageous act Andy, to pick a young child up off the street and stab her to death and dump her body off somewhere?
Both are crimes [ breaking lawful crimes] both are morally wrong that is of course if you believe these wrongs to be the abnorms of general society and it's citizens , both of these crimes have a perpetrator and a victim. So, can you differentiate for me the courageousness of both these crimes, and if you can't, why not?
i stand by it - it takes balls to walk into somebody's home to take their stuff, being fully aware of what could happen if you are caught in the act. that's not to say i think its right, or even that i admire the people that do it though, of course. breaking the law in general must take some degree of courage - less for breaking the speed limit, more for robbery or violent crime, or even drug dealing. lets not confuse the concept of courage with the generally positive meaning of courageous. maybe lets not even call it courage, lets call it balls, chutzpah, spunk, guts, or whatever else so we don't confuse ourselves. would you say that it takes absolutely no balls whatsoever to commit a crime that you know full well could land you with several years in prison, a serious beating, or both?
i think you let the idea of political correctness get to you too much. its important that society becomes more progressive, that for the good of all we try to act more humanely and to take decisions based on an objective view of all the factors involved. i personally see this as a much more conducive way forward for a healthy society than reactionary right wing politics, but i'm also aware that many mistakes will be made as we try and get our heads around it. it looks like the judge in question here made one of them.
one thing i would agree with you on, is that in an attempt to establish 'fairness' a lot of situations have gone way too far in the opposite direction. i'm sure that one day, after a few oscillations backwards and forwards, the correctness pendulum will occupy a healthy position in the middle.
the 'perpetrator as victim' scenario is, as well, more complex than you make out for your argument. its plainly obvious that the person who robs a house is not more of a victim than the people who were robbed -
in that instance. what we need to look at more though, are the social factors that have brought that individual to commit a crime. its highly possible that in many other circumstances in this person's life they
have been a victim of one kind or another. this doesn't mean that we have to give them a big cuddle and let them off, but it does mean we have to be a little more open minded about how we deal with criminals.