> Here's the essential aspect of the analogy:
>
> "X believes that an injustice has occurred
No. Stop. It isn't about someone believing that an injustice occurred . It's about someone having clearly violated a LAW. It's about cases where it was the duty of the authorities to step in and they failed in that duty. This isn't a minor point and your refusal to grasp it is at the root of your mis-analogising (I know that's not a word, but it's early here).
> By your logic of having the right to punish
> lawbreakers without the intervention of the legal system,
See, I said only like three times that I wasn't saying anyone had the right to do this, just that it can't be addressed without looking at why it happens and what are the alternatives to it happening.
> then, I am
> justified in personally meting out justice to the rape victim who "takes
> the law into her own hands". After all, I'm just trying to restore
> social order in the community!
Of course that would be a problem if it happened. I'm not aware that it actually has though, at least not in the communities I'm familiar with.
> By your logic,
..
> the logic that Wendy defends
*sigh* I guess you just can't put in enough disclaimers for some people.