The debate "Vigilantism is serioisly underrated" was started by
May 8, 2015, 12:54 am.
19 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 5 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
I_Voyager posted 1 argument, Getmurked posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
jonatron5, libertarian_rebel, AnkGanu, Violet, Benzdick, skyfrancois_97, soullesschicken, jedty and 11 visitors agree.
I_Voyager, PsychDave, Getmurked, DarkAngelAnarchist and 1 visitor disagree.
vigilantism is just an old herouc ideal, better set for. old wives tales. theres no realm where it could work effectively anf safely, the world isnt like gotham city. more often than not thiet clouded by extreme views, or are tok dangerous.
Vigilantism is necessary when law isn't doing its job right.
But vigilantism is not the ideal method of law enforcement.
Vigilantes answer to themselves and the moral code they've developed, and that isn't necessarily always good. There have been several occurrences of sane Christian vigilantes walking into abortion clinics and slaying doctors. This is no different than a band of Muslims storming an independent paper and blasting away artists who drew Muhammad. This is no different than black metal satanists burning down churches. The enforcement of one's private moral code upon people who don't nor need not share in it is the line vigilantes often cross. The line that makes them evil.
And I would LOVE for vigilantism to work. It's romantic as hell. It just doesn't work in a complex world where people of many different codes live together.