3 ms·
You are wrong. It is not even a question of perspective or moral position. For something to kill me that something does not need to have agency or volition, it
by rwissmann 13y ago
You are wrong. It is not even a question of perspective or moral position. For something to kill me that something does not need to have agency or volition, it simply has to cause my death. A volcano or an asteroid certainly have neither, and yet they are quite capable of killing. 'To be killed by something' can imply a relation of causality just as much (or more) than one of moral responsibility.
Stop trying to distort the meaning of natural language to suit your specific political agenda.
- mseebach 13y agoYou are yourself partaking in distortion by downplaying the original question's implication of moral responsibility. Why does it matter how many death this particular design has caused, in particular in the context of its inventor dying, as opposed to the myriad of other gun designs, if not to imply moral responsibility?