5 ms·

Consequentism. What goes around comes around yada yada

AYBABTME 3y ago
Explain this in more details. The outline I gather of your position is that "the US killed Ben Laden on Pakistani territory so India killed someone on Canadian territory, Canada had it coming for what they did to Ben Laden". Fill in the details.
- unmole 3y ago
  > Fill in the details. If you harbour terrorists who are wanted by your ostensible partners, don't be surprised if they lose patience and decide to take matters into their own hands. Does that help?
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    what makes you think that's okay? even children are taught that 2 wrongs don't make a right I'm not saying you were raised wrong though
    - unmole 3y ago
      I don't care how you were raised but killing terrorists is 100% OK.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        I don't care how you were raised, but two wrongs don't make a right, and unilateral, extrajudicial, extraterritorial assassinations of political opponents are wrong, even if you shout "terrorist!" while murdering imagine if such shouting made murder okay, like a secret, magical incantation any arbitrary thug could recite to immunize oneself from guilt - it's a ridiculous concept when you think about it!
        unmole 3y ago
        > unilateral, extrajudicial, extraterritorial assassinations Is an assination ever bilateral or judicial? This is basically the trolley problem: Do you pull the lever and kill terrorist, or do you let him keep bombing movie theatres and organising hits?
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        I'd say this is different from the trolley problem, because, again, unilateral, extrajudicial, extraterritorial assassinations of political opponents are wrong, even if you shout "terrorist!" while murdering they are always wrong it doesn't matter if you also did a good thing, it doesn't even matter if the good thing was related: you aren't allowed to do the wrong thing, period, even if you really, really, really want to, even if you think you have a good reason to break the rules and do wrong and as to your first question, eh, could be for some examples, but it'd be a distraction, as the answer doesn't matter, because the case we're discussing definitely wasn't either one
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Explain this in more details. The outline I gather of your position is that "the US killed Ben Laden on Pakistani territory so India killed someone on Canadian territory, Canada had it coming for what they did to Ben Laden". Fill in the details.

unmole 3y ago
> Fill in the details. If you harbour terrorists who are wanted by your ostensible partners, don't be surprised if they lose patience and decide to take matters into their own hands. Does that help?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  what makes you think that's okay? even children are taught that 2 wrongs don't make a right I'm not saying you were raised wrong though
  - unmole 3y ago
    I don't care how you were raised but killing terrorists is 100% OK.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      I don't care how you were raised, but two wrongs don't make a right, and unilateral, extrajudicial, extraterritorial assassinations of political opponents are wrong, even if you shout "terrorist!" while murdering imagine if such shouting made murder okay, like a secret, magical incantation any arbitrary thug could recite to immunize oneself from guilt - it's a ridiculous concept when you think about it!
      - unmole 3y ago
        > unilateral, extrajudicial, extraterritorial assassinations Is an assination ever bilateral or judicial? This is basically the trolley problem: Do you pull the lever and kill terrorist, or do you let him keep bombing movie theatres and organising hits?
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        I'd say this is different from the trolley problem, because, again, unilateral, extrajudicial, extraterritorial assassinations of political opponents are wrong, even if you shout "terrorist!" while murdering they are always wrong it doesn't matter if you also did a good thing, it doesn't even matter if the good thing was related: you aren't allowed to do the wrong thing, period, even if you really, really, really want to, even if you think you have a good reason to break the rules and do wrong and as to your first question, eh, could be for some examples, but it'd be a distraction, as the answer doesn't matter, because the case we're discussing definitely wasn't either one

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]