Its Cognitive Dissonance 101. The psychological defense mechanism. To these people, if one part of them is wrong, then their entire identity is wrong.
The pattern is becoming more apparent amongst authoritarians, they have a very disturbed sense of identity. They identify as the party. They identify as the country. They identify as being correct.
Was it wrong? Absolutely. Was it justified? Absolutely.
Gotta pick one, chief.
Not in America. There’s plenty of people that will tell you murder is wrong, but in the same breath tell you state-sanctioned murder is justified.
In fact, I’d wager most people, including myself, hold logically inconsistent beliefs. Logically consistent systems are either incomplete (per Godel) or impotent (like Presburger Arithmetic).
I really wish there was a universal moral calculus, but I haven’t found one.
That’s an easy one to defeat. Just depends on how you define murder. Like no sane person would balk at killing someone in unequivocal self-defense. I would exclude that kind of act from the definition of murder. That gets dicey when you take something like Luigi. Can outright murder be acceptable given a failing system? No one is considering murdering healthcare execs in places with universal healthcare.
If corporations can make decisions which directly lead to the deaths of others then those impacted by those decisions should be able to respond in self defense. The fact that they’re killing people with a pen stroke instead of a weapon doesn’t change the life-threatening nature of the situation they’re intentionally creating.
If corporations can make decisions which directly lead to the deaths of others then those impacted by those decisions should be able to respond in self defense.
Especially when they have policies to automatically deny claims, require appeals, etc. regardless of whether things should actually be covered. That’s an explicit decision by the company to put those people’s lives in danger, solely for the financial incentive.
Perhaps we need to add that to the murder definition.
I was thinking more along the lines of people lynching David Duke or Steven Anderson, A hate preacher associated with the quiverfull freaks. But also generally speaking C-suites and politicians as well.
The way I see it there’s no point in offering civility to those who would kill me for fun or a quick buck.
Gotta pick one, chief.
100% pure, concentrated, conservative logic right there.
Conservatives are obsessed with anti-heroes who “do what needs to be done” even when it’s illegal and morally odious.
They believe in end justify the means but can’t even describe or even imagine what is this “end”. End of the american empire?
Absolute individualist power fantasy. Same with shooting someone in self defense
Removed by mod
Most normal folk would prefer not to get mugged at all.
Its Cognitive Dissonance 101. The psychological defense mechanism. To these people, if one part of them is wrong, then their entire identity is wrong.
The pattern is becoming more apparent amongst authoritarians, they have a very disturbed sense of identity. They identify as the party. They identify as the country. They identify as being correct.
Not in America. There’s plenty of people that will tell you murder is wrong, but in the same breath tell you state-sanctioned murder is justified.
In fact, I’d wager most people, including myself, hold logically inconsistent beliefs. Logically consistent systems are either incomplete (per Godel) or impotent (like Presburger Arithmetic).
I really wish there was a universal moral calculus, but I haven’t found one.
Luigi
It was wrong… but I definitely understand. ^And wouldn’t convict.^
It wasn’t wrong.
Personally I’m not necessarily against murder, gotta judge it by a case by case basis but I don’t think the state should do it 9 times out of 10.
That’s an easy one to defeat. Just depends on how you define murder. Like no sane person would balk at killing someone in unequivocal self-defense. I would exclude that kind of act from the definition of murder. That gets dicey when you take something like Luigi. Can outright murder be acceptable given a failing system? No one is considering murdering healthcare execs in places with universal healthcare.
If corporations can make decisions which directly lead to the deaths of others then those impacted by those decisions should be able to respond in self defense. The fact that they’re killing people with a pen stroke instead of a weapon doesn’t change the life-threatening nature of the situation they’re intentionally creating.
Especially when they have policies to automatically deny claims, require appeals, etc. regardless of whether things should actually be covered. That’s an explicit decision by the company to put those people’s lives in danger, solely for the financial incentive.
Perhaps we need to add that to the murder definition.
I was thinking more along the lines of people lynching David Duke or Steven Anderson, A hate preacher associated with the quiverfull freaks. But also generally speaking C-suites and politicians as well.
The way I see it there’s no point in offering civility to those who would kill me for fun or a quick buck.
Violence, possibly even lethal violence, can be justified. But, it can’t be justified by revenge or convenience.
Alright, so, off straight to jail with that very clear confession.
… right?
Right?
Jersey Rules
Am I a hostile dumb piece of shit? Absolutely. Do I not understand consequences and does God weep anytime I open my fat mouth? Absolutely.
There are such things as mitigating circumstances, but those are supposed to be considered in a COURT OF LAW by a JUDGE. Not by self decree.