My understanding is that we hire ~10% of the surplus to guard the prisons that hold the remainder.
Why? Just use robots. A camp with two fences and automated turrets shooting anything that moves between them is quite sufficient. Or you can just go the British route of turning the whole nation into a giant Panopticon.
The new MLP's premiere episode (for each season, as well as the season 2 finale) is pretty much that, except it had the God-Empress of Equestria Herself spending the entire episode sitting back on her plot and letting the kids do the dirty work of saving the world. Three times:)
This comes back to haunt her in season 2 finale, when she finally gets up to fight herself and is promptly overpowered and knocked back down by Chrysalis. Even the megalomaniacal villain is confused about getting such an easy victory.
I loved Fallout:Equestria, but neither of you have approached the bottom of the barrel. Oh, look! Cupcakes!
Cupcakes is nowhere near the most brutal, gory nor disturbing MLP-inspired fic. It's not even particularly so.
Dark and gritty My Little Pony where Nightmare Moon stomps Twilight Sparkle to death?
That would still be lighter and softer than the original, which featured such lovely things like the Penguin Hitler and his explicitly depicted and visualized plans of genocide of all the "unworthy" non-Northern species (and on-screen murder). And of course Nightmare Moon herself is a way toned-down version of Tirec. Ah, golden childhood memories.
The old MLP was pretty much a superhero show with ponies. It even had the villain leave the heroes into an unescapable deathtrap unsupervised once.
Maybe a dark and gritty live-action He-Man movie?
The comic book version had one story where He-Man accidentally teleported his magic sword into the future. Since he couldn't transform without it, he went looking for it, and found a world ruled by Skeletor where everyone was dead or imprisoned.
But this really feels like writers and producers have run out of ideas and think that "darker and grittier" are magic words which automatically revive franchises.
Many old-time franchises were pretty dark to begin with, and only degenerated to jokes when that darkness was bleached out. So, if you wish to revitalize them, re-injecting some of the darkness is a good place to start. But of course that can easily go overboard and become ridiculous in its own way too.
Maybe instead they could try actually writing good plot lines?
Having darker elements present in a setting helps with that quite a bit. One of the unescapable truths of life is that nothing gets things moving like an evil maniac with lots of power. Without villains a series has a tendency to turn into slice-of-life show, which in turn degenerates to soap once status quo gets fixed in stone.
As for Climate Change, we still teach kids about the Ice Age, right? Why is it so wrong to teach them that we're headed into a "warm age" or whatever you want to call it.
Because stopping climate change requires rebuilding the energy infrastrcuture, which means that the oil and coal companies will lose money. Also, it will require either nuclear power or an absolutely enormous amounts of resources being permanently devoted to building and maintaining renewable power plants. Nuclear power is scary, and using enormous amounts of effort to maintain renewable power will mean far lowered quality of life for everyone (since that effort is removed from producing consumables).
Basically, climate change means that everyone who's in school now has nothing but misery to look forward to, either from trying to stop the change or from not stopping it. Also, fossil fuels are running out. Combine these two and there's precious little reason to bother graduating.
I was doing some science outreach stuff at a museum a while back, and a seemingly intelligent looking thirtysomething woman with two children asked me if the Sun goes around the Earth, or the other way around. That is when I gave up.
So, after someone you had judged intelligent based on a visual analogy of phrenology asked you a question about science she may or may not have had good reasons - such as being home-schooled by a crazy cult - to be ignorant about, you gave up on educating people on science? Because, obviously, having given birth twice should have given her the basics of astronomy.
You've introduced more variables to the situation. of course with added variables such as these the tactics may need to change for the situation, I wasn't advocating this is the end all solution for war -- or everyone would do it, to win a war.
I haven't introduced any variables, I have simply acknowledged existing variables. If your theoretical model didn't already include these variables, and they significantly affect the outcome, then your model is simply wrong - because these variables exist in reality.
You know... When the norm of a culture is to behave a certain way, that's not dysfunction, that's the norm for that culture. What you're saying could be equivalent to calling the Japanese 'dysfunctional' because of how their norms in combat and tactics differed from the US during the second World War.
Japanese lost. So, compared to the United States, they were dysfunctional. They got themselves to the point where they had to choose between fighting a clearly superior foe or ceasing their empire-building, and chose the former because they just couldn't give up their dreams of glory after all they'd paid for them.
That's a very good demonstration of my point, actually.
Another point of view could be that you wiped out the enemy and it's spawn, so that enemy is unable to kill you in the future, that does prove something - Your enemy is gone.
As I said in another post, you can't possibly wipe out all of the connections your enemy has (because that's every living thing on the planet), and any and all attempts will simply make more and more enemies.
Of course, I'm not condoning genocide, but I can see how it can have a valid tactic and in my point of view -- Ignoring this as a tactic also meas that you cannot plan adequately against such a threat.
Of course you aren't condoning genocide, you're just saying that it's a good tactic. And you're wrong, it's an idiotic tactic that will almost certainly backfire spectacularly.
What about a right to food? You willing to pony up to feed me? I dont feel like working.
No, but I certainly support guaranteeing you the ability to exchange your labour for money once you get hungry enough to reconsider. So I guess you could say that I'd be willing to pony up to feed you in exchange for you doing something useful in return, if you can't find any such people - sometimes called "employers" - in the open market.
Yes it is moronic. The difference is the right to seek a job using your own hard work and qualifications versus "a job is a right". Just because someone else has made poor life decisions, creating an underdeveloped basket case whose only function in life is to drool over the latest bread and circus churned out by the media entertainment complexes, does not mean they are entitled to anything other than bare subsistence provisions. I'm sorry if they're resentful, but tough fucking luck. It's never too late to start making some smarter choices in life.
If you are forced to play a game of musical chairs where the loser - the one left without a chair - is forced to live in miserable poverty, does that mean that he deserved it? Of course not. Perhaps he lost because he was an "underdeveloped basket case". Perhaps he lost because he was simply unlucky. It doesn't matter. What matters is that someone was bound to lose, no matter what. It's the game itself that is wrong, and should be changed; teaching a participant elite scampering skills might help that particular participant, but it doesn't stop someone from losing; it doesn't help the misery, it just shifts it around.
That baby won't grow up into an adult that can shoot my baby.
Which of these is more likely to result in grudges that span decades:
A) Shooting babies.
B) Not shooting babies.
You can use history as a cheat sheet, for example compare how Germany was treated after each World War and what the outcome was.
Besides, if you shoot a baby, anyone who cares about it wants you dead. You shoot those people, anyone who cares about them wants you dead. And so forth. You can't win that game; you can only dig yourself ever deeper and make more and more enemies.
Reducing the population of the enemy may be helpful in limiting their productivity. Productivity can be effected by a variety, not withstanding emotional changes to others, lack of work force etc.
True, but to significantly affecting productivity through population reduction requires genocide. Apart from the moral angle, committing genocide certainly increases the chances that your enemies - either this particular one or others - will respond in kind. In the era of weapons of mass destruction at the hands of any serious enemy, it might not be such a good tactical decision.
But of course a real war includes the moral angle, since it includes human beings. Willingness to commit intentional genocide isn't something that exists in a vacuum. It requires either a dysfunctional culture or a dysfunctional individual. Dysfunctional cultures are inefficient and likely to lose to more functional ones in the long run (which is why we're having this discussion in the first place), while dysfunctional individuals make poor leaders and soldiers.
Yet another way to view this is through evolution: conscience is an evolved trait, which means that it confers a survival advantage. Systems of morality held by various factions are also subject to evolution, as these factions clash and conflict; they didn't just come out of nowhere. Therefore, claiming that gross violations of the moral system held today are more likely to bring victory in a general case is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence; saying that a baby that you spare today might kill your children twenty years from now is a ridiculous excuse and certainly doesn't prove anything.
and then you simply get some absolute moronic signs like the one saying "a job is a right".
Is this moronic? Our current society is certainly built around the expectation that everyone has a job. People who don't are resented and denied anything beyond bare substinence income (and sometimes even that). When lack of a job makes you a barely tolerated human cochroach it's hardly surprising that some might start wondering if having one should be a formally recognized right.
Would you shoot some strangers baby in the face if the alternative was that he would shoot your baby in the face?
Can you explain how shooting a baby in the face will keep anyone from shooting yours? For that matter, how is shooting puppies or little old ladies going to help you win? It won't. If anything it just inspires the enemy. Which gets us to why "rules of war" exist: wars are extremely stressful situations, which cause people fighting in them to do unnecessary or even counterproductive cruelties. Rules of war and rules of engagement exist to try to prevent the more outrageous of these.
Now shut the fuck up.
Do you have some kind of personal stake here? Because you seem to be getting pretty emotional about the topic.
More importantly, use MongoDB. MongoDB handles web scale. You turn it on and it scales right up. MongoDB runs circles around your framework. Also, it inspires you to castrate bulls.
So you want to pretend that there are not very clear and widely accepted standards available for what constitutes gratuitous violence and pornography?
Widely accepted standards say that trying to turn other people into unpaid babysitters because you don't want to spend time overseeing your 7-year old kid is wrong. Since you obviously don't agree, we can't possibly know how your standards may deviate from those of a normal person in any other subject.
Guess what, there is this industry called movie business and TV.
So, this is now officially about turning Wikipedia into a new-age TV nanny?
I no they are old media and that's why you may never have heard of them. They had the same kind of issues and came up with standards long time ago. Amazing isn't it?
Sorry, but no. The ratings there refer to the presence of sex, and in case of XXX movies explicit sex, not whether the sex was "gratuitous" by some neglicent parent's definition. Furthermore, there's a difference between entertainment and encyclopedia, specifically that entertainment gets to choose its topics and content while an encyclopedia gets them dictated by surrounding reality. Finally, there's a difference of orders of magnitude between the sheer amount of stuff in Wikipedia and media industry's output.
And you still haven't answered the question of just who is going to shift through the archive and new edits and mark them suitable or unsuitable for 7-year olds.
That's nice. Now answer the question: how is anyone supposed to know what you consider unsuitable for your child? And why do you think it's reasonable for Wikipedia to go through all its present and future data to apply your standards just to save you some trouble babysitting your own kid?
I couldn't care less about what you get to see, but I would like a filter flag that allows me to ensure my kids are not exposed to gratuitous violence and/or pornography until they are mature enough to deal with it.
So what constitutes "gratuitous violence"? History? Descriptions of how snake venom operates? Book plot summaries? How is anyone supposed to know what you happen to consider appropriate or inappropriate for your kid? And that's not getting into the impossibility of actually implementing this: every existing article and every future edit would need to be reviewed to see what side of the divide they fall to. And of course any failures would open Wikipedia to liability lawsuits.
The code changes might be insignificant, but the effort to actually filter the data would be enormous and endless, and frankly your convenience doesn't justify it.
Christians are expected to memorize several passages word-for-word
Expected by whom?
I mean, it certainly seems reasonable to assume that a Christian might be familiar with the at least parts of the Bible, but you make it sound like a requirement, which leads to questions of just who has made such requirements and on what authority?
Even accepting that argument as is, I still believe there's some leeway here for smart people: educate the morons by force, ridicule their belifes on every occasion, don't just sit back and take their crap in the name of religious tolerance.
Smart people don't side with a would-be tyrant who openly declares his intent to violate people's rights. That your strategy of violent persuasion would almost certainly invigorate religious fundamentalism is just icing on the cake.
America can quote the names of countries it believes instills fear in it's populace all it wants, but those countries can't do jack shit when the rest of the world would oppose it.
The rest of the world won't oppose "it", as long as "it" is censorship. No politician on Earth has anything to gain from free flow of information, and plenty to gain from controlling what their citizens see, so the one thing they all can agree on is that the Internet needs to be censored. That's why more and more countries erect their own Great Firewalls.
The greatest thing about the Internet is that it allows people to see and discuss about things that offend "community standards", and that's also precisely the thing that community leaders hate. Allow communities greater control of "their" shard of the Internet, and it will die. Which is probably inevitable anyway, there's far too much power at stake for the powerful to allow it to continue existing.
All these "company towns" require extensive collusion with state and local (sometimes federal) governments in order to protect the assets of the business in question. Historically, that was taken away by labor law and anti-competitive regulation, but in a libertarian society, the business no longer has that powerful ally to protect it while it engages in harmful activities.
It also has no powerful opponent. Nothing stops it from hiring mercenaries to kill any who resist. Historically, we call this kind of system "feudalism", and it only ended when the central government became stronger than the local warlords; also, any country where the central government collapses tends to revert to some variation of feudalism in short order.
One needs social infrastructure that supports the libertarian strategy, eg, choosing to take on a tyrant, oppressive business, or crime lord and doing so in an organized way. This infrastructure simply doesn't exist in most of the world.
That's the worst argument you could have made. The market does a great job at setting prices that balance supply and demand, far better than any Central Planning Committee.
So it does. And history shows that there's almost always a huge surplus of labour for most professions, thus the prices - wages - are set at barely-survival level. So, letting the market set prices for labour means most people live in horrible poverty and the a few in the lap of luxury. Which is bad in itself and also leads to constant unrest and threat of revolts.
It is important to remember that the whole purpose of the market is to serve people, specifically by letting them acquire goods and services. Efficiency is a tool towards this end, nothing more; letting a tool get a higher priority than the goal is foolish. A market where a significant portion of the partitioners struggles to make ends meet has failed on its mission, no matter how "efficient" it might be, and letting the labour market go unregulated - for example by not having a minimum wage - leads to such a market.
What I want to know is how people deal with the cognitive dissonance of their (presumed) conviction that they're doing good, in the context of the methods that they're employing?
Some of the correspondence of the Nazis has been published, and some of it touches on this. If memory serves, it went something like "doing the right thing is hard, murdering people is hard, therefore murdering people must be the right thing to do." Yes, seriously.
Isn't there ever a moment of "Holy shit, my quest to make the world a better, more natural place is now manifest in me doing things like shooting nuns and throwing acid in infants' faces. I think I'd better go back to my hometown and spend a few weeks crying hysterically in the shower."
Admitting that you have a problem takes guts. It's hard enough when the worst you've done is puke into a gutter; imagine what it would take to admit that throwing acid on someone's face was actually a horrible thing, not a courageous act of religious or ideological commitment. Add the fact that hatred and violence are addictive, and it should hardly be surprising that people who've given in to them avoid admitting this to the last - and if they do admit it, they make up some bullshit story about being unable to change, as opposed to simply unwilling, thus turning themselves into the real victims, at least in their own minds. Which then justifies further degenerate acts in the name of vengeance.
Wouldn't you rather enjoy the high of self-rightenousness and adrenaline than face the hangover?
I guess since they are anarchists, when they are caught we can just forget all the usual mumbo jumbo about rights and privileges shoot them on the spot?
No, because unless you investigate you can't know if you've caught an anarchist or some poor bastard who just happens to be having a bad hair day.
Also, if you find legal rights to be "mumbo jumbo" to be ignored when given an excuse, why do you want to shoot anarchists, especially anarchist terrorists? Aren't you people kinda kindred spirits?
Slashdot Mirror
So why didn't you demonstrate it then, rather than just assert it? Also, I notice that you didn't specify who it is allegedly beneficial to.
Why? Just use robots. A camp with two fences and automated turrets shooting anything that moves between them is quite sufficient. Or you can just go the British route of turning the whole nation into a giant Panopticon.
They hire you?
This comes back to haunt her in season 2 finale, when she finally gets up to fight herself and is promptly overpowered and knocked back down by Chrysalis. Even the megalomaniacal villain is confused about getting such an easy victory.
Cupcakes is nowhere near the most brutal, gory nor disturbing MLP-inspired fic. It's not even particularly so.
That would still be lighter and softer than the original, which featured such lovely things like the Penguin Hitler and his explicitly depicted and visualized plans of genocide of all the "unworthy" non-Northern species (and on-screen murder). And of course Nightmare Moon herself is a way toned-down version of Tirec. Ah, golden childhood memories.
The old MLP was pretty much a superhero show with ponies. It even had the villain leave the heroes into an unescapable deathtrap unsupervised once.
The comic book version had one story where He-Man accidentally teleported his magic sword into the future. Since he couldn't transform without it, he went looking for it, and found a world ruled by Skeletor where everyone was dead or imprisoned.
Many old-time franchises were pretty dark to begin with, and only degenerated to jokes when that darkness was bleached out. So, if you wish to revitalize them, re-injecting some of the darkness is a good place to start. But of course that can easily go overboard and become ridiculous in its own way too.
Having darker elements present in a setting helps with that quite a bit. One of the unescapable truths of life is that nothing gets things moving like an evil maniac with lots of power. Without villains a series has a tendency to turn into slice-of-life show, which in turn degenerates to soap once status quo gets fixed in stone.
Because stopping climate change requires rebuilding the energy infrastrcuture, which means that the oil and coal companies will lose money. Also, it will require either nuclear power or an absolutely enormous amounts of resources being permanently devoted to building and maintaining renewable power plants. Nuclear power is scary, and using enormous amounts of effort to maintain renewable power will mean far lowered quality of life for everyone (since that effort is removed from producing consumables).
Basically, climate change means that everyone who's in school now has nothing but misery to look forward to, either from trying to stop the change or from not stopping it. Also, fossil fuels are running out. Combine these two and there's precious little reason to bother graduating.
So, after someone you had judged intelligent based on a visual analogy of phrenology asked you a question about science she may or may not have had good reasons - such as being home-schooled by a crazy cult - to be ignorant about, you gave up on educating people on science? Because, obviously, having given birth twice should have given her the basics of astronomy.
How very logical of you.
I haven't introduced any variables, I have simply acknowledged existing variables. If your theoretical model didn't already include these variables, and they significantly affect the outcome, then your model is simply wrong - because these variables exist in reality.
Japanese lost. So, compared to the United States, they were dysfunctional. They got themselves to the point where they had to choose between fighting a clearly superior foe or ceasing their empire-building, and chose the former because they just couldn't give up their dreams of glory after all they'd paid for them.
That's a very good demonstration of my point, actually.
As I said in another post, you can't possibly wipe out all of the connections your enemy has (because that's every living thing on the planet), and any and all attempts will simply make more and more enemies.
Of course you aren't condoning genocide, you're just saying that it's a good tactic. And you're wrong, it's an idiotic tactic that will almost certainly backfire spectacularly.
No, but I certainly support guaranteeing you the ability to exchange your labour for money once you get hungry enough to reconsider. So I guess you could say that I'd be willing to pony up to feed you in exchange for you doing something useful in return, if you can't find any such people - sometimes called "employers" - in the open market.
If you are forced to play a game of musical chairs where the loser - the one left without a chair - is forced to live in miserable poverty, does that mean that he deserved it? Of course not. Perhaps he lost because he was an "underdeveloped basket case". Perhaps he lost because he was simply unlucky. It doesn't matter. What matters is that someone was bound to lose, no matter what. It's the game itself that is wrong, and should be changed; teaching a participant elite scampering skills might help that particular participant, but it doesn't stop someone from losing; it doesn't help the misery, it just shifts it around.
Which of these is more likely to result in grudges that span decades:
A) Shooting babies.
B) Not shooting babies.
You can use history as a cheat sheet, for example compare how Germany was treated after each World War and what the outcome was.
Besides, if you shoot a baby, anyone who cares about it wants you dead. You shoot those people, anyone who cares about them wants you dead. And so forth. You can't win that game; you can only dig yourself ever deeper and make more and more enemies.
True, but to significantly affecting productivity through population reduction requires genocide. Apart from the moral angle, committing genocide certainly increases the chances that your enemies - either this particular one or others - will respond in kind. In the era of weapons of mass destruction at the hands of any serious enemy, it might not be such a good tactical decision.
But of course a real war includes the moral angle, since it includes human beings. Willingness to commit intentional genocide isn't something that exists in a vacuum. It requires either a dysfunctional culture or a dysfunctional individual. Dysfunctional cultures are inefficient and likely to lose to more functional ones in the long run (which is why we're having this discussion in the first place), while dysfunctional individuals make poor leaders and soldiers.
Yet another way to view this is through evolution: conscience is an evolved trait, which means that it confers a survival advantage. Systems of morality held by various factions are also subject to evolution, as these factions clash and conflict; they didn't just come out of nowhere. Therefore, claiming that gross violations of the moral system held today are more likely to bring victory in a general case is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence; saying that a baby that you spare today might kill your children twenty years from now is a ridiculous excuse and certainly doesn't prove anything.
Is this moronic? Our current society is certainly built around the expectation that everyone has a job. People who don't are resented and denied anything beyond bare substinence income (and sometimes even that). When lack of a job makes you a barely tolerated human cochroach it's hardly surprising that some might start wondering if having one should be a formally recognized right.
Can you explain how shooting a baby in the face will keep anyone from shooting yours? For that matter, how is shooting puppies or little old ladies going to help you win? It won't. If anything it just inspires the enemy. Which gets us to why "rules of war" exist: wars are extremely stressful situations, which cause people fighting in them to do unnecessary or even counterproductive cruelties. Rules of war and rules of engagement exist to try to prevent the more outrageous of these.
Do you have some kind of personal stake here? Because you seem to be getting pretty emotional about the topic.
She's a minor character in "Moai Better Blues", a second season episode of Sam&Max.
More importantly, use MongoDB. MongoDB handles web scale. You turn it on and it scales right up. MongoDB runs circles around your framework. Also, it inspires you to castrate bulls.
For more information, see this.
Widely accepted standards say that trying to turn other people into unpaid babysitters because you don't want to spend time overseeing your 7-year old kid is wrong. Since you obviously don't agree, we can't possibly know how your standards may deviate from those of a normal person in any other subject.
So, this is now officially about turning Wikipedia into a new-age TV nanny?
Sorry, but no. The ratings there refer to the presence of sex, and in case of XXX movies explicit sex, not whether the sex was "gratuitous" by some neglicent parent's definition. Furthermore, there's a difference between entertainment and encyclopedia, specifically that entertainment gets to choose its topics and content while an encyclopedia gets them dictated by surrounding reality. Finally, there's a difference of orders of magnitude between the sheer amount of stuff in Wikipedia and media industry's output.
And you still haven't answered the question of just who is going to shift through the archive and new edits and mark them suitable or unsuitable for 7-year olds.
That's nice. Now answer the question: how is anyone supposed to know what you consider unsuitable for your child? And why do you think it's reasonable for Wikipedia to go through all its present and future data to apply your standards just to save you some trouble babysitting your own kid?
So what constitutes "gratuitous violence"? History? Descriptions of how snake venom operates? Book plot summaries? How is anyone supposed to know what you happen to consider appropriate or inappropriate for your kid? And that's not getting into the impossibility of actually implementing this: every existing article and every future edit would need to be reviewed to see what side of the divide they fall to. And of course any failures would open Wikipedia to liability lawsuits.
The code changes might be insignificant, but the effort to actually filter the data would be enormous and endless, and frankly your convenience doesn't justify it.
Expected by whom?
I mean, it certainly seems reasonable to assume that a Christian might be familiar with the at least parts of the Bible, but you make it sound like a requirement, which leads to questions of just who has made such requirements and on what authority?
Smart people don't side with a would-be tyrant who openly declares his intent to violate people's rights. That your strategy of violent persuasion would almost certainly invigorate religious fundamentalism is just icing on the cake.
The rest of the world won't oppose "it", as long as "it" is censorship. No politician on Earth has anything to gain from free flow of information, and plenty to gain from controlling what their citizens see, so the one thing they all can agree on is that the Internet needs to be censored. That's why more and more countries erect their own Great Firewalls.
The greatest thing about the Internet is that it allows people to see and discuss about things that offend "community standards", and that's also precisely the thing that community leaders hate. Allow communities greater control of "their" shard of the Internet, and it will die. Which is probably inevitable anyway, there's far too much power at stake for the powerful to allow it to continue existing.
It also has no powerful opponent. Nothing stops it from hiring mercenaries to kill any who resist. Historically, we call this kind of system "feudalism", and it only ended when the central government became stronger than the local warlords; also, any country where the central government collapses tends to revert to some variation of feudalism in short order.
Sure it does. We call it "the government".
So it does. And history shows that there's almost always a huge surplus of labour for most professions, thus the prices - wages - are set at barely-survival level. So, letting the market set prices for labour means most people live in horrible poverty and the a few in the lap of luxury. Which is bad in itself and also leads to constant unrest and threat of revolts.
It is important to remember that the whole purpose of the market is to serve people, specifically by letting them acquire goods and services. Efficiency is a tool towards this end, nothing more; letting a tool get a higher priority than the goal is foolish. A market where a significant portion of the partitioners struggles to make ends meet has failed on its mission, no matter how "efficient" it might be, and letting the labour market go unregulated - for example by not having a minimum wage - leads to such a market.
Some of the correspondence of the Nazis has been published, and some of it touches on this. If memory serves, it went something like "doing the right thing is hard, murdering people is hard, therefore murdering people must be the right thing to do." Yes, seriously.
Admitting that you have a problem takes guts. It's hard enough when the worst you've done is puke into a gutter; imagine what it would take to admit that throwing acid on someone's face was actually a horrible thing, not a courageous act of religious or ideological commitment. Add the fact that hatred and violence are addictive, and it should hardly be surprising that people who've given in to them avoid admitting this to the last - and if they do admit it, they make up some bullshit story about being unable to change, as opposed to simply unwilling, thus turning themselves into the real victims, at least in their own minds. Which then justifies further degenerate acts in the name of vengeance.
Wouldn't you rather enjoy the high of self-rightenousness and adrenaline than face the hangover?
No, because unless you investigate you can't know if you've caught an anarchist or some poor bastard who just happens to be having a bad hair day.
Also, if you find legal rights to be "mumbo jumbo" to be ignored when given an excuse, why do you want to shoot anarchists, especially anarchist terrorists? Aren't you people kinda kindred spirits?