> There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in

> There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. Cutting corners in the name of profit has a chance of harming someone, and while it is definitely wrong, there is not even a remote comparison to the actions of demonstrated sociopathic behavior to harm, kill, and decapitate eight-year-olds watching a marathon. I don't really see the distinction here. Active intent vs. passive intent to harm others that means that you known that the actions you are taking will hurt, maim, or kill others and that, one way or another, you are OK with that. To say that passive acceptance of one's actions as leading to the ruining and death of others is not as bad as actively going on and committing murder is silly, either way you are justifying your actions and you had the same end result. > Let's say, for a moment, that Stallman is right, and that the chemical plant owners willfully traded employee safety for money. That's wrong. However, inability to realize that a human being intentionally killing and maiming fellow human beings using explosive devices on the streets of a populated city during a marathon, demonstrating full intent to kill and complete disregard for the free agency of children as young as 8, and blowing people's limbs off on purpose, is the mark of a sociopath. If you willingly traded employee safety for sake of profit and knew that doing so could reasonably hurt or kill others, you have demonstrated an intent to kill and demonstrated complete disregard for the free agency of people. That the tactics differ between someone dropping a bomb in a crowd vs. someone abusing their business and employees doesn't change the reality that both are doing something evil and destructive to society. > You concern me if you present an argument to me along these lines, that we should "care more" about the chemical plant or auto accidents on the interstates in a day or ... whatever. The point is that there are common issues in our society that cause greater loss of life and damage compared to less frequent events like bombing a crowd or a mass shooting. That doesn't mean that a bombing isn't bad or that it is less important. However, these kinds of events receive much more attention and coverage compared to those common dangers. > I'm more and more convinced lately that the people in my life who have arguments with me like this, including Richard Stallman, are sociopaths, and I'm sorry. I'm going to make active strides to remove these people from my life, and so should you; the complete disregard of basic social empathy, the understanding of why normal human beings consider the Boston bombings a life-changing event but the chemical plant marginally less so, indicates to me a conscience that is capable of thinking unspeakable things. For some, the chemical plant incident is more of a life-changing event than the Boston bombings. We should have empathy to see this and consider that hearing alternative points of view may provide a richer perspective about how these events affect our lives and the lives of others. If you reject anyone who doesn't agree with you about how important the Boston bombing is, you are saying that you are not interested in empathy in the first place because you are placing your experience and sharing of that experience as more important than others.