5 ms·

Right, which existed to let people buy things they wanted, like pot. He didn't sell near schools, or fight turf wars, etc. Our silly laws, and the greed of the

Right, which existed to let people buy things they wanted, like pot. He didn't sell near schools, or fight turf wars, etc. Our silly laws, and the greed of the blackmailer, created this situation. The person attempting to pull the trigger is nearly blameless.

emodendroket 10y ago
> Our silly laws, and the greed of the blackmailer, created this situation. The person attempting to pull the trigger is nearly blameless. lmao. OK dude
- EdHominem 10y ago
  If the laws were even slightly focused on harm reduction instead of stocking private prisons then maybe they wouldn't be ridiculous. And obviously the blackmailer, turning someone in for something that isn't an actual harm to society, is more of a harm than the "criminal" is. Your whole argument is "law enforcement is good", with as much proof as you'd supply for the existence of Santa. That's a stupidly naive view to have. Yes, kidnapping is bad and stopping kidnappers is good. But very little of what law enforcement does is in our best interests, as individuals or as a society. Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing. With bad law backing them up...
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    It's not that "law enforcement is good" or even "drug laws are good" but "hiring people to commit murder on your behalf is morally wrong." > Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing. With bad law backing them up... That's not exactly clear, no. In fact it's less than clear, to me, that hiring a hitman is anywhere near the same moral level as "evading law enforcement."
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > "hiring people to commit murder on your behalf is morally wrong." No, unjustifiably murdering people is wrong. Killing someone for the "right" reasons, either by yourself or by proxy, is morally right. > > Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing. > That's not exactly clear, no. Sure it is. You never taken a history class, or watched current events on TV, if you think all laws are equal and that all rulers have a right to be obeyed. Without recognizing a bad law you can't recognize good law. > In fact it's less than clear, to me, that hiring a hitman is anywhere near the same moral level as "evading law enforcement." Soldiers are hit men. Sending them some places results in war crimes, sending them other places prevents war crimes. Overall, I'd rather have and use soldiers than not. For a meaningful comparison with "law enforcement", first specify which legal system and which laws.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        > Killing someone for the "right" reasons, either by yourself or by proxy, is morally right. Avoiding the consequences for running your large criminal enterprise, through which you are enriching yourself, doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide.
        EdHominem 10y ago
        > through which you are enriching yourself Red Herring. > Avoiding the consequences The invented consequences, yes. But the consequences of the crime itself (ie hitting someone while drunk driving) have to be bad in and of themselves for the concept of crime to be distinct from angering the king. > doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide. Being threatened with having your life ruined for actions that don't hurt anyone actually seems like the only reasonable justification for killing someone. Especially in the case of a blackmailer where they aren't attempting to right any (theoretical) wrongs.
        emodendroket 10y ago

emodendroket 10y ago

> Our silly laws, and the greed of the blackmailer, created this situation. The person attempting to pull the trigger is nearly blameless. lmao. OK dude

EdHominem 10y ago
If the laws were even slightly focused on harm reduction instead of stocking private prisons then maybe they wouldn't be ridiculous. And obviously the blackmailer, turning someone in for something that isn't an actual harm to society, is more of a harm than the "criminal" is. Your whole argument is "law enforcement is good", with as much proof as you'd supply for the existence of Santa. That's a stupidly naive view to have. Yes, kidnapping is bad and stopping kidnappers is good. But very little of what law enforcement does is in our best interests, as individuals or as a society. Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing. With bad law backing them up...
- emodendroket 10y ago
  It's not that "law enforcement is good" or even "drug laws are good" but "hiring people to commit murder on your behalf is morally wrong." > Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing. With bad law backing them up... That's not exactly clear, no. In fact it's less than clear, to me, that hiring a hitman is anywhere near the same moral level as "evading law enforcement."
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > "hiring people to commit murder on your behalf is morally wrong." No, unjustifiably murdering people is wrong. Killing someone for the "right" reasons, either by yourself or by proxy, is morally right. > > Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing. > That's not exactly clear, no. Sure it is. You never taken a history class, or watched current events on TV, if you think all laws are equal and that all rulers have a right to be obeyed. Without recognizing a bad law you can't recognize good law. > In fact it's less than clear, to me, that hiring a hitman is anywhere near the same moral level as "evading law enforcement." Soldiers are hit men. Sending them some places results in war crimes, sending them other places prevents war crimes. Overall, I'd rather have and use soldiers than not. For a meaningful comparison with "law enforcement", first specify which legal system and which laws.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      > Killing someone for the "right" reasons, either by yourself or by proxy, is morally right. Avoiding the consequences for running your large criminal enterprise, through which you are enriching yourself, doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        > through which you are enriching yourself Red Herring. > Avoiding the consequences The invented consequences, yes. But the consequences of the crime itself (ie hitting someone while drunk driving) have to be bad in and of themselves for the concept of crime to be distinct from angering the king. > doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide. Being threatened with having your life ruined for actions that don't hurt anyone actually seems like the only reasonable justification for killing someone. Especially in the case of a blackmailer where they aren't attempting to right any (theoretical) wrongs.
        emodendroket 10y ago