Murder is bad and should not be glorified, even if the person being murdered is not well-liked or is judged to be immoral. amirite?

It is funny cause the American revolution and french revolution are historically viewed in a positive light considering there was a lot of deaths.

by kristinaparker 1 month ago

The number of people involved is the difference. Its not good letting a single person be the judge jury and executioner of morality whereas a much larger number of people were on board with the American and French Revolutions.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

It's not about if it's violent or not. Next to nobody deserves to die like that. You are all overlooking the system that exists in America. I'm not sure if you don't live here or not. Businesses that are publicly traded exist to make a profit—regardless of what they claim—that's how it goes— even if the claim is to save lives. United is a problem sure it's not good, but prescribed medicine shouldn't cost 10% of a paycheck either, that's the game. Back then society needed drastic drastic improvement, this is the best balance we've ever had contrary to popular belief. It will always have an imbalance, you can't just kill because of it.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

It does. Yes. Because critical thinking you have to look at cause and effect. The effect is two people are going to die and everyone is still going to be mandated to have health insurance and most will be forced to get whoever their employer has a deal with. So what does cheering this ordeal on really do but condone that killing someone with their back turned in broad daylight is socially acceptable?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

can't even tell the major differences between the American and French revolutions when society was barely formed and now Have you understood that the french revolution kicked off because of a short term financial crisis and a skewed wealth distribution that allowed the king and a few wealthy while to live in oppulance while leaving everyone else starving? Today the richest 0.1% own an even bigger share of the societies wealth than at the time of the French revolution. Sure, the poor today still own more than back then. Nevertheless: if the situation worsens and people are missing a perspective, expect to see more violence. Just because your system has "democracy" written on it, doesn't prevent anything. We are not living in some magical end time of history. Systems come and go, even if they have existed for hundreds of years (see Rome)

by Anonymous 1 month ago

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm just trying to say that if all of these people who are so worked up gathered strength in numbers it would make the same statement or some sort of strike would make the statement but cheering on a killing just moves it backwards and leads to more chaos in my opinion. Peaceful protests is just me wording it to not say riot because I just believe the more violence used the more we risk the tightening of the leash

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Please prevent the widening and constricting of your vocal chords

by StrawberryAdvanced 1 month ago

I think the problem is that while yes it's immoral sometimes immoral things need to be done to achieve greater good. It's really unfortunate but lots of people will excuse an immoral action if it causes great positive changes. That's honestly how lots of people see it. I mean every revolution can be seen as immoral but if it means great freedom and peace it's can be justified

by Livid-Camel-4564 1 month ago

But with the UHC killing, it's seems to be less about achieving a greater good and more about the satisfaction of a justified bloodlust. That's unquestionably immoral, yes?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

by Organic_Ant 1 month ago

No. It's about using fear to save future lives. For profit private health insurance is regularly denying needed care and treatment, and so those people with thst insurance do worse and some die as a result. People say that love is the strongest force in the world. It isn't. Fear is. Fear is deeply woven into every animal and they base many of their actions on Fear. Because fear increases survival. Massively, I might add. Had he not gotten caught, fear would be greater and companies would be changing their policies. Afraid their CEO would be next. THAT was the point.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Fear would be you not being forced to use their product or service. You literally cannot go on strike not having health insurance in the US and live a normal life. They are still a for profit business that reports earnings currently. If they report less profit, it's not good. It's an America problem more than it is a CEO problem.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

You think that the Board of Directors of major corporations are going to change policies to be much less profitable because they are afraid their CEO will be killed? I mean, I suppose that's possible in a Christmas Carol kind of way, but it just seems so ridiculously naive. But that fear is still out there, right? I mean the seed of that idea has been planted. Now instead of one whack job vigilante, society has been unleashed.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

I doubt that is a truly unpopular opinion. Even the murder you are referring to is not really scene as a good thing by most. Some people venting their disgust at insurance companies is to be expected.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

People are glorifying the murder, and I am saying that is morally objectionable. Within the social media communities I have seen online, this is apparently an unpopular opinion.

by Marlon10 1 month ago

🥱

by Anonymous 1 month ago

😂😘🤪

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Where were you while the health insurance companies were the ones doing all the killing? Why is it only a problem now?

by Organic_Ant 1 month ago

It is wrong to celebrate murder, regardless of who was murdered. Murder is bad. Okay, now that we got that out of the way, back to the party.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Its also UNWISE and MORALLY WRONG to ignore people you claiming to help and profit off their suffering. It's not that people condone what happened. It's just that people aren't saddened by it because everyone knows how greedy and awful the healthcare system yet nothing has been done.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

People ARE condoning it, though.

by Frosty_Cricket 1 month ago

Nope, plenty of people are condoning what happened. Just look around social media. I agree it is unwise and morally wrong to underserve people's health care needs. What is your preferred health care system? I think a public option would be a good idea.

by Marlon10 1 month ago

Hiltler was kinda of a public figure. It was pretty, pretty clear he commited some crimes. Like, pretty obvious. So how do you suggest we decide who is guilty or not, if this person doesn't start the Holocaust but does something that is not highly mediatized and public ? What are the criterias ? Like "I think he is a bad person", or "Someone told me he did a crime" ?

by WinterFarm 1 month ago

We have the statistics on UHC denials.

by Organic_Ant 1 month ago

Denials are not a crime.

by WinterFarm 1 month ago

Nobody cares.

by Organic_Ant 1 month ago

Lol yeah people care.

by WinterFarm 1 month ago

UHC denial is not the same as consciously killing off groups of people because they don't fit your criteria of superior humans and race. The United States governments take on health insurance is the problem—United is playing the game.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Is abortion murder? You say no (perhaps), I would say no, many would say yes. So, shall we allow abortion clinics to be bombed? After all, millions of people believe that abortion doctors are committing lots of murders, right? Or should we settle the more heavily debated cases in the realm of public policy? Is it morally irresponsible, and does it cause mass deaths, when people publicly express skepticism about vaccines such as the COVID vaccines? I would argue yes. Should we murder people who are vaccine skeptics, because their actions causally influence death rates? I would say no.

by Marlon10 1 month ago

You choose to get abortion. No one forces you to get one. You choose to get vaccinated. No one forces you to get one. You can say no. I want this baby I do not want this vaccine. You get abortion you don't consider it murder. That's a third unrelated party that's getting offended. Here the thing is different. Here you gave your hard earned money, your life's work to a company just so you can get it back when you need it the most. If that company then took your money. Earned more from it and then denied when you needed it the most. Do you not see the injustice here?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Thank you for your input, so you are cool with glorifying murder when it's for a purpose you feel is justified?

by Marlon10 1 month ago

Its a paradox: It's easy to call for the death of others. Not so much fun when its your turn. Due process protects the rights of scum and the righteous. Be careful what you wish for.

by christiana94 1 month ago

I stand with the murder... #FREELUIGI

by Anonymous 1 month ago

No, they don't.

by Current-Associate926 1 month ago

And how do you decide who is a pedophile and who is a child abuser ? You just decide they are, not real proof needed, no trials, just on suspiscions ? Or just because someone told you so ? ... don't you thing there will be TONS of cases of self-justice againts innocents ?!? There is a justice system for a reason. You are not competent enough to process evident, inquire, and investigate to know for sure who commited a crime. There is zero reasons society should trust you to dispence justice properly.

by WinterFarm 1 month ago

don't forget serial killers and sexual offenders

by elsiemueller 1 month ago