4 ms·

> My entire point here is that there are some kinds of unjust killings which are legal, and that the disparity is heavily skewed such that the kinds that tend t

by edanm 2y ago

> My entire point here is that there are some kinds of unjust killings which are legal, and that the disparity is heavily skewed such that the kinds that tend to be done by rich and powerful people are the kinds that are legal. I think you're flipping the causality. It's not like society looked at all ways of killing people, said "well these ones are done by poor people and these by rich, let's decide what to do about things based on that". It's that rich people in general got that way by working within the system, doing legal things, etc. (Usually, but not always, with a lot of starting privilege that made it easier for them, or course.) > Why do you think there is a disparity? Is it purely the product of democracy and the will of the people? Mostly. I think the disparity is because shooting someone is a lot less ambiguous than doing things like using pollutants. I think you're refusing to acknowledge the nuance here. But just to be clear - you think poisoning someone with lead is legal? Or releasing lead into places that would affect people is legal? Cause I'm pretty sure you're wrong on both counts. Lead is heavily regulated, and I'm fairly certain clear-cut cases of "I released a paint with lead in it" would be illegal. > I agree that it’s bad to take it into your own hands and kill people you think the law has failed to cover. > But it’s going to happen sometimes. In a healthy society it’s going to be universally condemned. This one wasn’t. What does it mean and what should we do about it? Well I think you answered your own question - it shows that our society is unhealthy. That's why I'm spending my time arguing on an internet forum on why I think we should all condemn this kind of thing - I'm fighting for the ideals of a healthy society! > Some segment of commenters seems to think that it means people are sick and should be shamed into condemning this killing like they’re supposed to. > I think that’s stupid. People are how they are. It’s more interesting and useful to look at why this particular killing gets so much support. Not at all stupid (I say, as someone doing this). I don't agree with this "people are people" idea. I believe in ideas, in debate, in persuasion. I believe we as a society are pretty lost if we can't come around such basic ideas as "murder is wrong and we should all condemn murderers". And btw, I think despite the huge amount of noise we're all seeing about this, in absolute terms I think 95% people the population is firmly on the side of "murder is wrong", with a very large online contingent of people making it appear that there is some groundswell otherwise. I'm also trying to fight this perceived groundswell, if only by showing that the other side exists. > The failing in our society isn’t that too many people cheer on this killing. That’s a symptom. The problem is a system which treats people’s lives cheaply, which allows some people to kill in the name of profit, and not only fails to condemn them, but rewards them handsomely. I think this is just an utterly wrong view of society. We live in a golden age compared to any other society that has ever existed. People generally live longer, healthier lives by almost any actual statistic that measures such things. We have access to a vast wealth of almost anything we want, from experiences, to material goods, to entertainment - things that would've looked like miracles to a person at almost any other time in history. And I think this idea that the system treats people's lives cheaply is absurd, frankly. There are specific problems, the system isn't perfect - but you can't objectively look at current (Western) society and not see that it's the pinnacle of human achievement - so far - by almost any objective measure. That this translates into a populace that is somehow very upset with some vague "the system" is a problem, but I think you're misdiagnosing it as something actually being wrong with "the system", as opposed to being wrong with people's perceptions. (Of course a lot of this hinges on what you mean by "the system" here - certainly every country has lots of specific problems that you could point out and I'd agree with. But I usually hear these complaints phrased very abstractly, without any concrete understanding of what specifically is wrong or what better "system" you are imagining. If you want to tell me what your answer is to either of these questions - I'd be very interested in hearing!)

meiraleal 2y ago
> I believe in ideas, in debate, in persuasion do you? Are you open to be convinced of the opposite of your view on this issue? > I think despite the huge amount of noise we're all seeing about this, in absolute terms I think 95% people the population is firmly on the side of "murder is wrong" I think you are wrong. Society very often sides with the side that is perceived as the threatened person acting in self-defense even when they use violence. Also we cannot rule out racism. If the killer wasn't white (then fit for the role of hero in the US), it would be all different.
- edanm 2y ago
  > do you? Are you open to be convinced of the opposite of your view on this issue? Yes, always. But I think it's a pretty high burden of proof to convince me that murder is OK, or that it should be celebrated. > I think you are wrong. Society very often sides with the side that is perceived as the threatened person acting in self-defense even when they use violence. I think very few people would consider killing someone in cold blood an actual act of self defense. I could be wrong of course. Hard to tell how people genuinely feel without some kind of real survey. > Also we cannot rule out racism. If the killer wasn't white (then fit for the role of hero in the US), it would be all different. I'm not sure what you mean here, could you explain?
wat10000 2y ago
Society did precisely what you say it didn’t do. As polluting industries arose, society decided what to do about it. For a long time it was nothing. Then some restrictions, generally increasing over time. The fact that restrictions were enacted and changed means there was a deliberate choice here. We looked at industrialists profiting from mass poisoning, and our response was, could you tone it down a bit? And not, killing innocent people for money is wrong, so you’re going to prison. There are plenty of circumstance where it’s legal to release lead into places where it would affect people. Sometimes outright not forbidden, and sometimes technically illegal but barely enforced. Examples of the former include leaded gasoline (still legal for some application) and coal power plants (they exhaust all sorts of nasty stuff, including lead). For the latter, consider Flint Michigan, or you can find random cases such as Smith Foundry where they exceeded limits for years and consequences were light. I recognize that it’s a lot easier to draw a causal line for a gun than for pollution. I don’t think it should matter aside from the increased difficulty of proving guilt. I recognize that it does influence perceptions, but I don’t think it should. Interesting thing about living longer, healthier lives than ever before. In the US, that leveled off about 15 years ago. Lately it has started getting worse. Health care costs continued to rise steadily. Insurance bureaucracy gets ever more onerous. And the wealthiest people in society continue to get vastly more wealthy. You could say that people are still a lot better off than they were 50 years ago or whatever. And you’d be correct. But people really don’t like it when things get worse. They especially don’t like it when the pain isn’t shared by the upper crust. Would you rather have a health care plan that provides quick, easy access to leeches, or a plan with a million forms, an annoying call tree, and opaque decision making, which gives you proper medicine 90% of the time and leeches 10% of the time? The second one is the objectively better option. But the people who offer that plan will probably be lynched. You can acknowledge that and work with it, or you can insist on treating people as rational and get absolutely nowhere. “Murder is wrong” is a tautology. “Murder” means a killing that is wrong. (Either morally or legally depending on context.) The question isn’t whether murder is wrong. Everyone agrees on that. The question is which killings morally count as murder and which don’t. And don’t say “they all count!” Almost nobody actually believes that and you probably don’t either. People draw the line in different places but you can almost always find some circumstance where they’d say, yeah, that killing was acceptable. It’s a little surprising that a bunch of people think killing an insurance CEO is on the other side of the line, but it shouldn’t be surprising that there is a line. Society is unhealthy. We agree on that. Why do you think it’s so? Is it just something that happens randomly, or is there an underlying reason?

by edanm 2y ago

meiraleal 2y ago

> I believe in ideas, in debate, in persuasion do you? Are you open to be convinced of the opposite of your view on this issue? > I think despite the huge amount of noise we're all seeing about this, in absolute terms I think 95% people the population is firmly on the side of "murder is wrong" I think you are wrong. Society very often sides with the side that is perceived as the threatened person acting in self-defense even when they use violence. Also we cannot rule out racism. If the killer wasn't white (then fit for the role of hero in the US), it would be all different.

edanm 2y ago
> do you? Are you open to be convinced of the opposite of your view on this issue? Yes, always. But I think it's a pretty high burden of proof to convince me that murder is OK, or that it should be celebrated. > I think you are wrong. Society very often sides with the side that is perceived as the threatened person acting in self-defense even when they use violence. I think very few people would consider killing someone in cold blood an actual act of self defense. I could be wrong of course. Hard to tell how people genuinely feel without some kind of real survey. > Also we cannot rule out racism. If the killer wasn't white (then fit for the role of hero in the US), it would be all different. I'm not sure what you mean here, could you explain?

wat10000 2y ago

Society did precisely what you say it didn’t do. As polluting industries arose, society decided what to do about it. For a long time it was nothing. Then some restrictions, generally increasing over time. The fact that restrictions were enacted and changed means there was a deliberate choice here. We looked at industrialists profiting from mass poisoning, and our response was, could you tone it down a bit? And not, killing innocent people for money is wrong, so you’re going to prison. There are plenty of circumstance where it’s legal to release lead into places where it would affect people. Sometimes outright not forbidden, and sometimes technically illegal but barely enforced. Examples of the former include leaded gasoline (still legal for some application) and coal power plants (they exhaust all sorts of nasty stuff, including lead). For the latter, consider Flint Michigan, or you can find random cases such as Smith Foundry where they exceeded limits for years and consequences were light. I recognize that it’s a lot easier to draw a causal line for a gun than for pollution. I don’t think it should matter aside from the increased difficulty of proving guilt. I recognize that it does influence perceptions, but I don’t think it should. Interesting thing about living longer, healthier lives than ever before. In the US, that leveled off about 15 years ago. Lately it has started getting worse. Health care costs continued to rise steadily. Insurance bureaucracy gets ever more onerous. And the wealthiest people in society continue to get vastly more wealthy. You could say that people are still a lot better off than they were 50 years ago or whatever. And you’d be correct. But people really don’t like it when things get worse. They especially don’t like it when the pain isn’t shared by the upper crust. Would you rather have a health care plan that provides quick, easy access to leeches, or a plan with a million forms, an annoying call tree, and opaque decision making, which gives you proper medicine 90% of the time and leeches 10% of the time? The second one is the objectively better option. But the people who offer that plan will probably be lynched. You can acknowledge that and work with it, or you can insist on treating people as rational and get absolutely nowhere. “Murder is wrong” is a tautology. “Murder” means a killing that is wrong. (Either morally or legally depending on context.) The question isn’t whether murder is wrong. Everyone agrees on that. The question is which killings morally count as murder and which don’t. And don’t say “they all count!” Almost nobody actually believes that and you probably don’t either. People draw the line in different places but you can almost always find some circumstance where they’d say, yeah, that killing was acceptable. It’s a little surprising that a bunch of people think killing an insurance CEO is on the other side of the line, but it shouldn’t be surprising that there is a line. Society is unhealthy. We agree on that. Why do you think it’s so? Is it just something that happens randomly, or is there an underlying reason?