"i believe that to disregard the law and beat that vandal is an appropriate expression of disatisfaction with their tactics. are they both wrong? of course."


it's both appropriate AND wrong?
I would have to say beating someone is inappropriate.
I could almost agree with you if you said beating the vandal was *understandable* and also wrong. But it sounds like even you are confused about where you stand on whether it's OK to beat someone you find defacing your property.

Also, welcome to the tribe. Your posts have been thoughtful and clear-headed, and I've enjoyed them.

I didn't mean for this to become "The joeyp and x Show", but since I'm bored at work I might as well continue. And I hope you don't think I'm being aggro, because I'm not.

I can see your point of view, but it's basically the "eye for an eye" theory. That's why I frame things from a legal standpoint. If everyone followed that "they disregarded the law so I will too" philosophy there would be mass chaos and we'd all be dead. That's why there are laws imposed, and battery almost always trumps vandalism as being the worse offense in the eyes of the law. Unfair, but true.

I don't think that vandalizing a Hummer is doing so to express dissatisfaction with the mere existence of them, I think that it's a way to punish the owner of a Hummer indirectly for owning something you feel is wrong. It's along the same lines as painting a fur coat if you are against fur: I don't think it's because you are upset that the fur exists, I think it's a way to punish the owner of said fur coat for having something you feel is wrong. People key cars not to damage the car but to damage the owner (i.e. as seen on Judge Judy). But whatever the motivation, it's still illegal. And I still don't agree that using violence against the vandal is acceptable, no matter how stupid the act of vandalism may be.

I think joining tribes where you don't share the common interest of said tribe is totally self-indulgent. This is entry #3 under the definition of "tribe":
3. group of people sharing an occupation, interest, or habit
Joining a tribe where you don't share the common interest, or like the music group, the TV show, the philosophy, or the lifestyle of the intended tribe members is kind of ridonkulous. Especially if you feel like you are joining in order to create dialogues that you feel wouldn't exist without you. Yes, some tribes can become incestuous with the commentary, but that doesn't make it logical to join the "I (heart) Country Music!!" tribe and then start posting things about how country music is for racist alcoholic ignorant rednecks so you can start a "discussion." Much the same way joining the "If You drive a Hummer, You're an Asshole" tribe and telling everyone in said tribe that they're a bunch of stupid liberals and proceed to try to tell them why you're morally and intellectually superior to all of them when in the process you prove that you are neither is ridonkulous.

And I do apologize for remarking to your postings inaccurately; I confused your response to Kerry with your response to Jake. Itchy posting finger.....