I’ve been doing nothing but try and shed light on the fact that murder, regardless of how its seen, never should be championed, but shouldn’t be hated though at the same time, to the point where we think murdering the murderer is justified therefore.
You’re the one trying to apply inapplicable ethical questions to it, in attempt to justify it. When I’m not arguing it’s justification, no amount of murder is just to any degree in my opinion. I’ve been arguing that your hate is no different from anyone others, including and especially, anyone your hate is intended for.
We shouldn’t be championing a murderer the way they’re championing a rapist.
This just just absolutist and naive. I know you think it’s the height of virtue to see the world in such simple terms, but it isn’t taking the world, or humanity, as it is. We are animals, no more no less, and unless we literally genetically modify ourselves, we will always have violence within us. Some will always attempt and succeed at using those tendencies to subjugate the many, and the many can do and have suffered generationally, having children who live just to suffer, until finally the many, left with no other recourse, answer in kind, causing change for the better or worse, but on the long arm of history the better.
Your way of thinking comes from conflating often beautiful, even meaningful fiction as applicable to grim reality that doesn’t exist in prose, and isn’t watched over by some ridiculous divine father figure. It’s appealing to Santa Claus in a world built on coercion and exploitation.
Someone who affected real positive change in a tangible sense once said “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Check this out, Tolstoy’s Personal, Social, and Divine Conceptions to life:
“The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare).
The whole history of the ancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view to life to the divine view of life.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherent the Earth.” - Jesus, Matt 5:5
Not the traditional Christianity; Revelation, Corinthians this or supernatural, spiritual that. One that consists of a more philosophical interpretation of The Gospels that’s hiding underneath all the dogma ever since Paul. One that emphasizes The Sermon On the Mount, debately, the most publicized point of his time spent suffering to teach the value of selflessness and virtue, thus, the most accurate in my opinion. Tolstoy learned ancient Greek and translated The Gospels himself as: The Gospel In Brief, if you’re interested. This translation I’ve found to be the best:
Please consider reading Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction regarding this matter, specifically The Kingdom Of God Is Within you. You’re rebukes are the same he address in a more clearer and detailed way. I can’t tell you how niave it is of you to say the things your saying in its regard, when you’ve clearly never even considered it in its entirety for yourself.
India’s independence wasn’t gained through violence. Neither were the Jim Crow Law abolished via violence, not to mention the sacrifice of King Codrus that influenced Greek men throughout the centuries afterward: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus, and all the other examples I’m ignorant to, not to mention how obviously effective it is on a smaller level—arguments, the bully at school, the tailgater; you’re calling a universally renowned way of reacting to things you hate more maturely as naive, my friend.
I’ve been doing nothing but try and shed light on the fact that murder, regardless of how its seen, never should be championed,
That is not a fact. It’s an opinion, and an unhelpful one too. What other practical solution was there to the mass social murder of thousands by Thompson and their associates?
It’s definitely an incredibly helpful one, that’s for sure. I agree it’s my opinion but yours falls more in line of that of a murderers considering you’re saying that there are circumstances when murder should be championed. Which begs the lesson I wish I would’ve made my original comment to connotate more efficiently: who’s the real bad guy when both are celebrating debately equally as terrible acts?
who’s the real bad guy when both are celebrating debately equally as terrible acts?
It’s a good question. An issue I see with with this premise, is that one must consider more than an act itself, but also its context, to decide if it’s terrible.
To explain what I mean by that, consider this thought experiment:
A person with a gun walks into a church and tries to shoot everyone they see. One of the people in the church (person A) violently tackles the gunman to try and stop them killing people. Tackling someone is violent battery.
A person (person B) walking along a footpath sees their co-worker who they are jealous of, and out of hatred, tackles them. Tackling someone is violent battery.
Evidently, despite committing the exact same violent act, person A is heroic and praiseworthy and prevents large amounts of harm overall, while person B is anti-social and harmful overall. Would you agree that person B is ‘the real bad guy’ of those two, despite them committing the same violent act?
That also applies to more extreme acts such as murder - that’s why we distinguish it from manslaughter and self-defense based on intent rather than the act itself. For example, let’s modify that first scenario: if person A was further away and their only way to prevent mass murder was to shoot the gunman, would they be just as bad as the gunman? They’re both attempting to shoot a person, but surely person A would not be ‘the real bad guy’? In fact, most people would find it appropriate to celebrate person A for saving innocent lives, and find it extremely inappropriate to celebrate the gunman who threatened innocent lives.
For that same reason, people are celebrating the assassination of Thompson, as Thompson’s acts as CEO are knowingly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Luigi only killed one person, in an attempt to prevent many many more people being killed by UHC. They are not equal or equivalent. Nor is that equal or equivalent to the acts of Trump as a politician and the mass suffering caused by their policies and the torture caused by their sexual assault of women.
‘The real bad guy’ out of Trump and Luigi is clearly Trump. Luigi, in fact, is not a ‘bad guy’. What Luigi did was defending innocent people from a mass social murderer, which is generally what a ‘good guy’ does in the overly simplistic worldview of ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
I’m not arguing who’s the better man, I’m arguing who’s the better groups of people when both are championing iniquity despite their justifications for it. In my opinion neither, considering iniquity to any degree to be nothing but that. I do agree of course it’s necessary in plenty of situations, especially considering how barbaric and individualized we still are as a species, but never something to be praised, encouraged or championed to this degree. It wasn’t necessary to assassinate yet another CEO in contrast to these more necessary extremes like Hitler for example; he was the farthest thing from a Hitler, thus of course not entitled to the same response. Luigi only put additional influence of violence and hate in the world, handing it over to those that loved the man he murdered, and the wake of their hate influencing others. Like all those that praise this man for stooping down to their level to eliminate the problem.
Healthcare is just doing what any other industry is meant to do: profit. As long as this is the emphasis the problem will continue to persist. So it’s not a matter of how many individuals we eliminate it’s more a matter of how many minds we change. Minds aren’t changed when they’re being threatened, insulted or screamed at; only the opposite has that ability.
I’ve been doing nothing but try and shed light on the fact that murder, regardless of how its seen, never should be championed, but shouldn’t be hated though at the same time, to the point where we think murdering the murderer is justified therefore.
You’re the one trying to apply inapplicable ethical questions to it, in attempt to justify it. When I’m not arguing it’s justification, no amount of murder is just to any degree in my opinion. I’ve been arguing that your hate is no different from anyone others, including and especially, anyone your hate is intended for.
We shouldn’t be championing a murderer the way they’re championing a rapist.
This just just absolutist and naive. I know you think it’s the height of virtue to see the world in such simple terms, but it isn’t taking the world, or humanity, as it is. We are animals, no more no less, and unless we literally genetically modify ourselves, we will always have violence within us. Some will always attempt and succeed at using those tendencies to subjugate the many, and the many can do and have suffered generationally, having children who live just to suffer, until finally the many, left with no other recourse, answer in kind, causing change for the better or worse, but on the long arm of history the better.
Your way of thinking comes from conflating often beautiful, even meaningful fiction as applicable to grim reality that doesn’t exist in prose, and isn’t watched over by some ridiculous divine father figure. It’s appealing to Santa Claus in a world built on coercion and exploitation.
Someone who affected real positive change in a tangible sense once said “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Check this out, Tolstoy’s Personal, Social, and Divine Conceptions to life:
“The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare). The whole history of the ancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view to life to the divine view of life.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherent the Earth.” - Jesus, Matt 5:5
Not the traditional Christianity; Revelation, Corinthians this or supernatural, spiritual that. One that consists of a more philosophical interpretation of The Gospels that’s hiding underneath all the dogma ever since Paul. One that emphasizes The Sermon On the Mount, debately, the most publicized point of his time spent suffering to teach the value of selflessness and virtue, thus, the most accurate in my opinion. Tolstoy learned ancient Greek and translated The Gospels himself as: The Gospel In Brief, if you’re interested. This translation I’ve found to be the best:
https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Brief-Harper-Perennial-Thought/dp/006199345X
Please consider reading Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction regarding this matter, specifically The Kingdom Of God Is Within you. You’re rebukes are the same he address in a more clearer and detailed way. I can’t tell you how niave it is of you to say the things your saying in its regard, when you’ve clearly never even considered it in its entirety for yourself.
India’s independence wasn’t gained through violence. Neither were the Jim Crow Law abolished via violence, not to mention the sacrifice of King Codrus that influenced Greek men throughout the centuries afterward: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus, and all the other examples I’m ignorant to, not to mention how obviously effective it is on a smaller level—arguments, the bully at school, the tailgater; you’re calling a universally renowned way of reacting to things you hate more maturely as naive, my friend.
That is not a fact. It’s an opinion, and an unhelpful one too. What other practical solution was there to the mass social murder of thousands by Thompson and their associates?
It’s definitely an incredibly helpful one, that’s for sure. I agree it’s my opinion but yours falls more in line of that of a murderers considering you’re saying that there are circumstances when murder should be championed. Which begs the lesson I wish I would’ve made my original comment to connotate more efficiently: who’s the real bad guy when both are celebrating debately equally as terrible acts?
It’s a good question. An issue I see with with this premise, is that one must consider more than an act itself, but also its context, to decide if it’s terrible.
To explain what I mean by that, consider this thought experiment:
Evidently, despite committing the exact same violent act, person A is heroic and praiseworthy and prevents large amounts of harm overall, while person B is anti-social and harmful overall. Would you agree that person B is ‘the real bad guy’ of those two, despite them committing the same violent act?
That also applies to more extreme acts such as murder - that’s why we distinguish it from manslaughter and self-defense based on intent rather than the act itself. For example, let’s modify that first scenario: if person A was further away and their only way to prevent mass murder was to shoot the gunman, would they be just as bad as the gunman? They’re both attempting to shoot a person, but surely person A would not be ‘the real bad guy’? In fact, most people would find it appropriate to celebrate person A for saving innocent lives, and find it extremely inappropriate to celebrate the gunman who threatened innocent lives.
For that same reason, people are celebrating the assassination of Thompson, as Thompson’s acts as CEO are knowingly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Luigi only killed one person, in an attempt to prevent many many more people being killed by UHC. They are not equal or equivalent. Nor is that equal or equivalent to the acts of Trump as a politician and the mass suffering caused by their policies and the torture caused by their sexual assault of women.
‘The real bad guy’ out of Trump and Luigi is clearly Trump. Luigi, in fact, is not a ‘bad guy’. What Luigi did was defending innocent people from a mass social murderer, which is generally what a ‘good guy’ does in the overly simplistic worldview of ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
I’m not arguing who’s the better man, I’m arguing who’s the better groups of people when both are championing iniquity despite their justifications for it. In my opinion neither, considering iniquity to any degree to be nothing but that. I do agree of course it’s necessary in plenty of situations, especially considering how barbaric and individualized we still are as a species, but never something to be praised, encouraged or championed to this degree. It wasn’t necessary to assassinate yet another CEO in contrast to these more necessary extremes like Hitler for example; he was the farthest thing from a Hitler, thus of course not entitled to the same response. Luigi only put additional influence of violence and hate in the world, handing it over to those that loved the man he murdered, and the wake of their hate influencing others. Like all those that praise this man for stooping down to their level to eliminate the problem.
Healthcare is just doing what any other industry is meant to do: profit. As long as this is the emphasis the problem will continue to persist. So it’s not a matter of how many individuals we eliminate it’s more a matter of how many minds we change. Minds aren’t changed when they’re being threatened, insulted or screamed at; only the opposite has that ability.