China teen seen as hero for killing local official

[aelf]

What about mass movements? A man shouldn't put his family at risk just because of the potential for bigger movements. They happen, but it still doesn't give a man the right to put his family in danger.

You don't think mass movements can begin with the actions of individuals? I'm sure much of history disagrees with you there.

Putting people you love in danger is a problem, but then again that is a perennial reason that authorities give to discourage opposition, thereby justifying oppression. I don't think there is a hard-and-fast rule as to whether it's better to act one way or another. Very often you just won't know till after.

 

[Cynovolans]

You don't think mass movements can begin with the actions of individuals? I'm sure much of history disagrees with you there.

Putting people you love in danger is a problem, but then again that is a perennial reason that authorities give to discourage opposition, thereby justifying oppression. I don't think there is a hard-and-fast rule as to whether it's better to act one way or another. Very often you just won't know till after.

I said they happen, but it still doesn't give a man the right to put his family in danger.

That is why they choose not to act most of the time, because they know if they do act they're just putting everyone around them at risk.

 

[aelf]

I said they happen, but it still doesn't give a man the right to put his family in danger.

That is why they choose not to act most of the time, because they know if they do act they're just putting everyone around them at risk.

Well, I have to say that I do know plenty of people who think that way. And they're just free riders. They think it's wrong to act because of this and that, but they're counting on other people to act for them to bring about change that they want. If everybody thinks that way then democracy fails or can never arise.

But maybe that suits someone with an opinion like yours?

 

[Cynovolans]

Well, I have to say that I do know plenty of people who think that way. And they're just free riders. They think it's wrong to act because of this and that, but they're counting on other people to act for them to bring about change that they want. If everybody thinks that way then democracy fails or can never arise.

But maybe that suits someone with an opinion like yours?

No it's not counting on other people act, it's not counting on anything to change. The only thing it's counting on is preventing a family from getting killed.

 

[aelf]

No it's not counting on other people act, it's not counting on anything to change. The only thing it's counting on is preventing a family from getting killed.

So democracy and freedom can only be had in a bed of roses?

Anyway, I don't really believe this whole resignation front. You'd certainly be overjoyed if change does come on the backs of others. You just don't ever want to do it yourself and would rather moralise that they did something wrong, which has benefited you.

I know Christians who think that way and I loathe their position.

 

[Cynovolans]

So democracy and freedom can only be had in a bed of roses?

Anyway, I don't really believe this whole resignation front. You'd certainly be overjoyed if change does come on the backs of others. You just don't ever want to do it yourself and would rather moralise that they did something wrong, which has benefited you.

I know Christians who think that way and I loathe their position.

I don't understand what you keep going on about. Are you saying it is okay for a man to put his family in danger? Just as long as there is a potential change that could possibly occur because of it?

 

[Ecofarm]

As others have pointed out...

I think that in order to be a "hero", you must commit the act for free. It can be in the line of duty/employment in general, but any obligation to extraordinary courage (especially cash paid for the exact deed) voids "heroism".

A cop is not expected to take a bullet for anyone nor a firefighter expected to charge into completely unsafe structures, but they do; however, that's not really what they are paid for.

Like that pilot that landed in the Hudson. He's a hero because he doesn't really get paid to land in rivers but he did it spectacularly to save lives. If someone said "hey dude, I'll give you a million bucks to land that bird in the river" - not the same thing.

 

[Archbob]

Um, no. THis is the people's republic we're talking about here. Worker's paradise, remember? I am sure swift action would have come from the main politburo in Beijing if they had learned of his behavior prior to his murder.

Your joking right? That complaint would have never gone anywhere.

And mass movements don't work in China, those people just get shot, or run over by tanks.

 

[bhsup]

Your joking right? That complaint would have never gone anywhere.

And mass movements don't work in China, those people just get shot, or run over by tanks.

Um yeah, I was joking actually. I'm rather surprised anyone thought that remark by me was sincere at all.

 

[aelf]

I don't understand what you keep going on about. Are you saying it is okay for a man to put his family in danger? Just as long as there is a potential change that could possibly occur because of it?

Like I said, there's no rule about how you should act in such situations. If you do choose to do something to try and change the circumstances, you can't be said to be wrong. I suppose the reverse is also true. The moralising about people who "put their families in danger" is what is morally bankrupt, especially if you were living under such circumstances, since you should know very well that you might owe it to such people for the change that would make things better for you, your family, maybe his own family, as well as subsequent generations.

 

[cardgame]

Are you saying it is okay for a man to put his family in danger? Just as long as there is a potential change that could possibly occur because of it?

You mean Martin Luther King was immoral?

 

[JohnRM]

To kill someone without a just cause is murder. On this we agree.

Killing a defenseless prisoner, even if he has murdered someone, is not something I consider a just cause. While you apparently do.

In other words, I consider all the people who have taken part in executions, that be prison guards, judges, prosecutors, and executioners, to be murderers. And you don't.

----------

As for this case, I consider the assassin to be justified in killing. He will of course be found guilt and executed, because he (and his supporters) are not powerful enough to do something about it.

But if this becomes a more prevalent occurrence, then there is a good chance that the message will sink in, and either the local officials start to act better, or the real top dogs (Jintao and the other top party people) will start to act in fear of having a general revolt.

I consider him a murderer, because he got paid. If he had done it without getting paid, I MIGHT consider the remaining circumstances and consider it somewhat less of a crime, but he got paid. The motivation has EVERYTHING to do with the crime. He did it to get paid. PERIOD. He would probably murder just about ANYONE to get paid. PERIOD. But whatever, he still isn't a worse murderer-hero than that Mumia Abu Jamal.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

nor a firefighter expected to charge into completely unsafe structures, but they do; however, that's not really what they are paid for.

Wait, what?

 

[Berzerker]

I consider him a murderer, because he got paid. If he had done it without getting paid, I MIGHT consider the remaining circumstances and consider it somewhat less of a crime, but he got paid. The motivation has EVERYTHING to do with the crime. He did it to get paid. PERIOD. He would probably murder just about ANYONE to get paid. PERIOD. But whatever, he still isn't a worse murderer-hero than that Mumia Abu Jamal.

If motive has everything to do with it, then why was he paid to kill someone? That motive matters too, right? The fact some poor as dirt kid took money for his poor as dirt family to off some commie thug would make everyone who got money to kill commie thugs murderers. The motive was to end a plague on the land, its a form of self defense. If a corrupt as hell southern sheriff back in the 60s or a Nazi thug in the late 30s were killed by a black and a Jew, would you call them murderers? Not me... A govt title does not shield you from the moral justification for revenge created by your abuse of power, a thug with a badge is still a thug. This is one thug who wont be trampling on people any more...