JUSTICE or VENGEANCE: ANY DIFFERENCE ?

@OmSigDAVID,

Of course it is different.

Read the definitions.

0 Replies

Justice = getting even.

Vengeance = getting even.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I see you make up definitions just like you make up spelling.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

One can infer some answer from the question: - Is it just to take revenge?

This guy wrote a lot about it : Cicero

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

The difference is the intent and even with your assumption, the result will usually be different.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I see you make up definitions just like you make up spelling.

Do u wish to bless us with your own opinion
of the correct answer to the question, Mr. Parados ?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The difference is the intent and even with your assumption,
the result will usually be different.

HOW will the result usually be different ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Are you incapable of using a dictionary?

I suppose your method of spelling makes it hard to find words.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Justice seeks a zero sum gain; vengence an advantage even if it is only fractional.

In actuality, we don't have a whole lot of justice dispensed in this country. In severe cases, the penalty rarely fits the crime; being too modest. In minor cases, the penalty often doesn't fit the crime; being too harsh.

0 Replies

@parados,

Are you incapable of ignoring those posters on A2K who seem to drive you so wild?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDavid wrote:

Does justice differ in its nature from vengeance ?

Let me answer your question with a counter-question: There's obviously a lot of vengeance in a lynching. Would you say there's also a lot of justice in it?

OmSigDavid wrote:

Let us assume for ease of argument
that the vengeance is not excessive relative to the primary offense.

I don ' t see a distinction in principle.

I'm not surprised. You assumed away the distinctions in principle for ease of argument, so it's no wonder you don't see them anymore.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

OmSigDavid wrote:
Does justice differ in its nature from vengeance ?

Let me answer your question with a counter-question: There's obviously a lot of vengeance in a lynching. Would you say there's also a lot of justice in it?

Nice that you ignore his original assumption.

Putting that aisde though, there can easily be a whole lot of justice in a lynching.

Not surprisingly, you assume that "lynching" has always been carried out on innocent blacks.

Without arguing in favor of vigalantism, there have been plenty of "lynchings" in this country that very clearly refelected justice, and didn't involve blacks.

Lynchings may represent justice, but it would be unusual for them to be carried out strictly on the basis of vengence.

One person or several family members might satisfy their need for vengence by killing the person perceived to be guilty. Whether they did so by hanging the offender from a Live Oak or shooting him through his liver, it's a stretch to argue that they lynched the bastard., They may have assasinated him or murdered him, but unless they gathered the will of their neighbors to argue he should be, amd will be killed, they didn't lynch him.

Thomas wrote:

OmSigDavid wrote:
Let us assume for ease of argument
that the vengeance is not excessive relative to the primary offense.

I don ' t see a distinction in principle.

Quote:
I'm not surprised. You assumed away the distinctions in principle for ease of argument, so it's no wonder you don't see them anymore.

OmSigDavid wrote:
Let us assume for ease of argument
that the vengeance is not excessive relative to the primary offense.

I don ' t see a distinction in principle.

I'm not surprised. You assumed away the distinctions in principle for ease of argument, so it's no wonder you don't see them anymore.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

OmSigDavid wrote:
Does justice differ in its nature from vengeance ?

Let me answer your question with a counter-question: There's obviously a lot of vengeance in a lynching. Would you say there's also a lot of justice in it?

Nice that you ignore his original assumption.

Putting that aisde though, there can easily be a whole lot of justice in a lynching.

Not surprisingly, you assume that "lynching" has always been carried out on innocent blacks.

Without arguing in favor of vigalantism, there have been plenty of "lynchings" in this country that very clearly refelected justice, and didn't involve blacks.

Lynchings may represent justice, but it would be unusual for them to be carried out strictly on the basis of vengence.

One person or several family members might satisfy their need for vengence by killing the person perceived to be guilty. Whether they did so by hanging the offender from a Live Oak or shooting him through his liver, it's a stretch to argue that they lynched the bastard., They may have assasinated him or murdered him, but unless they gathered the will of their neighbors to argue he should be, amd will be killed, they didn't lynch him.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Are you incapable of ignoring those posters on A2K who seem to drive you so wild?

wild? That is an interesting choice of words there Finn. Why do you think David drives me wild?

I pointed out the dictionary shows a difference between vengeance and justice. He made up definitions as he does spelling. It doesn't drive me wild. I just pointed it out. Why does it drive you wild that I did so?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Are you incapable of using a dictionary?

I suppose your method of spelling makes it hard to find words.

R u irritated at being invited to express your opinion ?

U sound annoyed.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

OmSigDavid wrote:

Does justice differ in its nature from vengeance ?

Thomas wrote:

Quote:

Let me answer your question with a counter-question: There's obviously a lot of vengeance in a lynching.
Would you say there's also a lot of justice in it?

I 'd say that not all lynchings are necessarily equally just.
The justice depends upon the nature of the act that is being avenged, Thomas.
For instance, I remember the actor called Mr. T
saying, during an interview, that his mother had been mugged.
He said that she identified the offender, whereupon he and his brothers
found him and addressed the situation. He said "You won 't see him no more."
I believe that I inferred what he implied.
If I were on a jury in this case, based on those facts,
he will NOT get convicted, indeed, I admire their taking the initiative
and doing what I consider to be the honorable thing.

Let me take that a step further:
in the same circumstances,
if other sons were informed of the same thing
by their mother and thay opted to do NOTHING,
just forget it, I 'd deem that to be selfish and cowardly,
unless government avenged their mother sufficiently.

I did not have a very high opinion of Mr. T, particularly,
but after he described that incident,
he aroused my respect for him and for his brothers.
Thay took their chances that the iron fist of government
might crash down on them, avenging the mugger,
but thay did the right thing anyway; that 's personal courage. BRAVO !

OmSigDavid wrote:

Let us assume for ease of argument
that the vengeance is not excessive relative to the primary offense.

I don ' t see a distinction in principle.

Thomas wrote:

Quote:

I'm not surprised. You assumed away the distinctions in principle for ease of argument,
so it's no wonder you don't see them anymore.

Your answer 'd have been more helpful -- more understandable -- if u
had offered your own opinion of what u deem those principles to BE.
I only intended to say that the punishment shoud not exceed
the severity of the original offense; i.e., a trivial offense
shoud not be the basis for catastrophic vengeance.
Likewise, the opposite shoud not happen, either:
e.g., the Rosenbergs shoud not have been sentenced to 30 days in jail
for giving our nuclear secrets to the communists; thay deserved what thay got.
Vengeance and the vindicated offense shoud be
of approximately the same degree of magnitude.
To my mind, that seems logical.

If u have another vu,
I 'd be interested to consider it, if I knew what it is.

David

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Are you incapable of using a dictionary?

I suppose your method of spelling makes it hard to find words.

R u implying that so long as dictionaries exist,
I shoud censor myself from offering our fellow denizens of A2K
the opportunity to comment upon the subject matter ?

In other words, r u implying to me:
"shut up and read the book " ?

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

hmmm...

let's see

from Merriam Webster

* Main Entry: im·ply
* Pronunciation: \im-ˈplī\
* Function: transitive verb
* Inflected Form(s): im·plied; im·ply·ing
* Etymology: Middle English emplien, from Anglo-French emplier to entangle " more at employ
* Date: 14th century

1 obsolete : enfold, entwine
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
3 : to contain potentially
4 : to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>
synonyms see suggest
usage see infer

dave, i think you are onto him...

0 Replies

yeah

0 Replies

JUSTICE or VENGEANCE: ANY DIFFERENCE ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know