Bettors are using death threats to try to get The Times of Israel's military correspondent to change his report on a missile impact in central Israel. This is his alarming account
Because suggesting outright premeditated killing for people with a given trait, regardless of whether they have actually offended in any way or are an active threat or whether killing them is the only way to stop them being one, is kinda genocidal. We should never advocate killing people for things they cannot control.
Killing someone is, as our technology goes today, final. It robs them of all potential, all freedom, of the most basic human right: life. It is a heartless thing to do to someone, regardless of motivation. Yes, when you’re under attack, killing your attacker is valid, but it should never be taken lightly and inherently devalues their life in favour of your own survival. It is a trade we should accept, but also be aware of.
But reflexively resorting to murder when there is no immediate need for it infringes on fundamental human rights. And doing so indiscriminately for a psychological condition is, quite frankly, no better than killing people for their ethnicity or religion.
Restrict them from seeking power for a fundamental incompatibility with the requirements for empathetic governance, but do not call for their death. Do not forsake your own empathy.
Right. Im also not suggesting to kill everyone with a net worth of 1bn+ regardless of their actions. But there are many people whose greed has killed thousands and keeps ruining the lives of millions, would you not call that “being under attack”, which you brought up as a justification for homicide? Also the countless wars that are being fought for their pleasure where people are quite literally under attack.
But just to be clear, my first comment was meant as a joke.
would you not call that “being under attack”, which you brought up as a justification for homicide?
No, with “being under attack” in this case I meant immediate, impending physical harm with probable lethal consequences. Self-defense in that sense should strive to be somewhat proportional to the severity of the attack.
But you raise an interesting point:
We absolutely should do something about the suffering arising from the greed and cruelty of the super-rich. The difficulty with removing individuals is that the institutions propping them up will continue to exist. While their ownership (and the mechanisms of inheritance / transfer of that wealth) as well as the attendant authority is accepted as legitimate, the problem will continue to exist.
The theoretical approaches to changing this system – whether from within or without – don’t strictly require violence, but the people who believe in that legitimacy will follow orders to defend it against people that would render those orders void. If they do so violently, it may be necessary to defend ourselves.
And this is where you have a point I didn’t originally consider: if we perceive the orders (and thus the ones giving them) as the ulterior enemy, self-defense could extend beyond the immediate threat of people misguidedly following them.
This could also be applied to, say, healthcare execs that make decisions with significant impact on people in need of lifesaving care, or military industrial cronies.
Whether responding with violence is a good idea or at all effective is a different question, but I can see an argument that targeting key figures behind life-threatening orders would at least be a legitimate form of self-defense.
But just to be clear, my first comment was meant as a joke.
That apparently went over my head, but it lead to an interesting line of thought I didn’t consider before, so I’ll consider that a win.
Because suggesting outright premeditated killing for people with a given trait, regardless of whether they have actually offended in any way or are an active threat or whether killing them is the only way to stop them being one, is kinda genocidal. We should never advocate killing people for things they cannot control.
Killing someone is, as our technology goes today, final. It robs them of all potential, all freedom, of the most basic human right: life. It is a heartless thing to do to someone, regardless of motivation. Yes, when you’re under attack, killing your attacker is valid, but it should never be taken lightly and inherently devalues their life in favour of your own survival. It is a trade we should accept, but also be aware of.
But reflexively resorting to murder when there is no immediate need for it infringes on fundamental human rights. And doing so indiscriminately for a psychological condition is, quite frankly, no better than killing people for their ethnicity or religion.
Restrict them from seeking power for a fundamental incompatibility with the requirements for empathetic governance, but do not call for their death. Do not forsake your own empathy.
Right. Im also not suggesting to kill everyone with a net worth of 1bn+ regardless of their actions. But there are many people whose greed has killed thousands and keeps ruining the lives of millions, would you not call that “being under attack”, which you brought up as a justification for homicide? Also the countless wars that are being fought for their pleasure where people are quite literally under attack.
But just to be clear, my first comment was meant as a joke.
No, with “being under attack” in this case I meant immediate, impending physical harm with probable lethal consequences. Self-defense in that sense should strive to be somewhat proportional to the severity of the attack.
But you raise an interesting point:
We absolutely should do something about the suffering arising from the greed and cruelty of the super-rich. The difficulty with removing individuals is that the institutions propping them up will continue to exist. While their ownership (and the mechanisms of inheritance / transfer of that wealth) as well as the attendant authority is accepted as legitimate, the problem will continue to exist.
The theoretical approaches to changing this system – whether from within or without – don’t strictly require violence, but the people who believe in that legitimacy will follow orders to defend it against people that would render those orders void. If they do so violently, it may be necessary to defend ourselves.
And this is where you have a point I didn’t originally consider: if we perceive the orders (and thus the ones giving them) as the ulterior enemy, self-defense could extend beyond the immediate threat of people misguidedly following them.
This could also be applied to, say, healthcare execs that make decisions with significant impact on people in need of lifesaving care, or military industrial cronies.
Whether responding with violence is a good idea or at all effective is a different question, but I can see an argument that targeting key figures behind life-threatening orders would at least be a legitimate form of self-defense.
That apparently went over my head, but it lead to an interesting line of thought I didn’t consider before, so I’ll consider that a win.
Whynot? Just donate to charity to get down to 999,999,999 nw and they’re safe.