3 ms·
I guess this is the crux of it. The law does not hold anyone responsible for your death, and nobody is responsible for providing you life saving services. Thes
by s1artibartfast 2y ago
I guess this is the crux of it. The law does not hold anyone responsible for your death, and nobody is responsible for providing you life saving services.
These are the laws that your fellow citizens have chosen and established.
- bdangubic 2y agoyou know, our history says that at times, injustices may need to be fought with a touch of violence… killing CEOs is not the kind of violence any reasonable human being can condone, but people tragically affected by someone’s actions may not be all that reasonable
- s1artibartfast 2y agoThe same logic holds true for a an incel gunning down women or someone shooting up a church because they feel harmed.
- bdangubic 2y agothat is nowhere near same logic :)
- s1artibartfast 2y agoIf we throw up our hands and accept that each individual can be the judge of injustice, and execute whatever retribution they see fit, these individuals also meet that criteria. By abandoning democratic law, you also abandon 3rd party discretion and control over which injustices are legitimate.
- tptacek 2y agoIt's exactly the same logic. You can't just take your own set of issues, say you're obviously right about everything, and then factor out everybody else's big issues. If you make a consequentialist argument for murdering insurance executives, other people do in fact get to use the same moral logic to stop things you disagree with them about, like gender-affirming care and abortion.
- bdangubic 2y agobeing directly responsible for someone’s death is just not the same as having a difference of an opinion (like we are having). I will definitely not try and hunt you down… however, if you are responsible for a death of my loved one - that might be another story… jokes aside, I am not saying this tragedy was justified in any way but we are not talking here about “opinions” and “religion” for sure
- tptacek 2y agoSure. Again: if you just hate the guy and have no compunctions about saying why after he's murdered, then whatever, that's not interesting enough to argue about. But if you're literally saying "this was good and more like this would be better" --- and some people are --- that is a notably warped proposition.
- justinclift 2y agoPeople make excuses for these CEO's using the same logic though don't they? At what point is defending their murdering of people an acceptable approach? :)
- tptacek 2y agoBy that logic, every health system in the entire world is murdering people constantly. Meanwhile: I'm talking about a guy walking up to an executive and shooting him in the chest.
- justinclift 2y ago> By that logic, every health system in the entire world is murdering people constantly. Not at all. The US "health care" system has the extremely bad reputation it has for a reason. This guy seems to (for all we know) have only killed a single person (so far). The person he shot has likely killed far more. I'm not sure why you're ok with that, or am I misunderstanding?
- valval 2y agoAnother person has tried to rationally explain to you why your position is unhinged and you weren’t taking it, so I’ll put this more plainly. Take up arms today to defend your ideology. Rally everyone you can and go to war. It won’t be a long war.