3 ms·

All I meant was, even if someone genuinely believes the world would be better off if X person dies, bluntly stating that belief is generally not appropriate for

• toomuchtodo 3y ago
  But I am intellectually curious (perhaps to a fault), and have arrived at this position from a curious place, first principles even. If someone is causing harm, and there are no mechanisms to box them in to not cause harm, what else are you to do besides wait for them to leave (and perhaps take a bit of solace that a harmful person no longer roams amongst us, inflicting harm on others without repercussions)? Genuine question from a high empathy human. As I said above and to reaffirm my position: It's definitely not "something bad should happen to this person," (not good, I don't support this at all, and have said it nowhere in this thread) but "at least eventually they won't be here to cause the harm they cause." I don't believe that idea to be in poor taste, but I am happy to be challenged on it. Kissinger comes to mind, picking from an extreme example for argument's sake. “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." -- Clarence Darrow > It’s also a bit depressing. This is an understatement of current state. And yet, we go on. I hope this subthread has helped build context and explain my position with regards to the statement you took issue with (and that I removed out of an abundance of caution), which is not from a place of malice, but more pragmatic resignation.