I’m german. I’ve learned about her in history and this is my opinion and your comment assuming I don’t know what I’m talking about is very telling. Seems like you have a really good-faith argument on your hand
I’m german. I’ve learned about her in history and this is my opinion and your comment assuming I don’t know what I’m talking about is very telling. Seems like you have a really good-faith argument on your hand
Where do I stop with the murder? Whats the criteria to be evil and deserve to die? Who decides what justice is? I agree that its a slippery slope and its why I think self justice like this is more self righteousness than anything
Then you’d need a majority in democracy to vote in their interests. But they voted for Trump, a man who wants to get rid of the ACA and impose senseless tariffs on all countries while cutting down on regulation that keeps people save and installing his own unhinged lackeys. Harsh rhetoric, but I want to say the American people have voted against their interest, and if political pressure was there change would be possible. I like that this issue is getting attention but I strongly question people calling for more murder and chaos.
I think its one of the reasons reddit will never reach the mainstream like reddit. For one people find it confusing to find a community which I disagree with, you just need to take a slight effort to understand that you have a choice of community and in return you get great freedom. Since its mostly for more techies I and its overwhelmingly like left, people with moderate right views will feel like they’re completely out of place.
Im also sad that many of the bigger communities like ml have unhinged mods that ban for anyone disagreeing with them. For example some calls for violence being overwhelmingly onesided on here made me feel sick at times. But I don’t feel like sparking that debate over here.
It is disgusting to compare a murderer to Anne Frank
You don’t need to be a good person to have a reason not to be killed.
Being a human being is already enough in most cases. His death does not change anything
I am honestly appreciate, that not everyone shares the same bloodlust people on lemmy have
I personally think even in this case a precious life is lost. I haven’t dug into the potential use of AI to deny claims which is highly unethical. I come more from an approach of utilitarianism: Every life/lifetime has some sort of potential joy and value to it. If for example a regime falls and a dictator causing a lot of loss of value (in this case life and quality of life) dies, the equation is a positive one if people get to live longer better lives. The dictator is the main reason for suffering.
In the case with the CEO he isn’t the main reason for suffering, rather the system is. He has to bear part of the responsibility but his death doesn’t have a positive outcome in our equations because the death changes nothing. He also isn’t fully responsible for the system which is the root problem of the health system.
I myself also believe generally murder is in nearly all cases wrong, and does while I am against the Genocide in Gaza I do think you’re at least partially talking about my group and generalizing it to make an obscene argument. Your example is actually perfect valid and if a person doesn’t care about genocide/death in gaza they can’t claim the moral high ground if they only value this kind of life. Its also distracting a bit from the main point of life and especially a life of good quality having value.
One side follows rule of law, while the company and shareholders he is working from require him to maximize profits at the cost of the insured customers.
The other side caused mass destruction across europe, millions dead, millions displaced, left countries in ruins and starving, gassed millions of Jews and caused mass chaos.
If he was to excel the expectations of the people he worked for he was supposed to decline health treatments. If he started performing worse for the shareholders he would’ve been at fault in the eyes of the shareholders and thus replaced.
Hitler on the other way acted on his own accord. There were no democratic institutions above him or really any to hold him accountable. The healthcare system on the other hand can be changed in a democratic system and political pressure. A dictator like Hitler certainly not through peaceful protest, as those were answered with violence and suppression
The way its presented is as if everyone or even most people are like this. “often” might be true but it isn’t really an argument in that case if you mean it literally
Really easy to generalize a group like this. I’ve been opposing both the humanitarian crisis and genocide caused by Isreal as well as this cowardice murder of a CEO that changes nothing. I’m also against the medical insurance system in the US, I just think this action doesn’t do shit. It takes real energy to protest and mobilize people to make real change possible but that seems like too much for a bunch of people on here
Hard to compare some shot CEO to Hitler imho
I’ll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Wait couldn’t you have filed a lawsuit? I mean yeah, the cops didn’t do their job (I guess they could be sued for that too). But you would need proof in text form so just ask them again in a mail or letter. If they don’t do their job and you have proof then they’re screwed
Honestly, I get what you mean, but it also provides funding for new housing projects to be built first, and if you weren’t allowed to invent in it it would also not really be possible to rent a house, since that relies on someone paying for the house first.
Actually doing this would not only be immoral but just treat the symptoms of the downfalls of capitalism, not the cause. We need legislative change that has a proper social safety net, not violence LARPing.
Not every billionaire built their life doing something unethical. Killing them wouldn’t make you any better. People also fuel monopolies out of convenience even if they have a choice to act ethical. We should strive for legislative change. The billionaire might be the owner of parts of a company, but we as a society use the services for our daily lives. What economic system that actually works also supports free ideas, innovation and the willingness to perform other than something based on capitalism (Communism never worked and doesn’t reward it properly). Treating symptoms won’t treat the cause. We need legislative change.
Very idealistic to think that the redistribution of all that money wouldn’t just cause mass inflation! Also, mot of the money is tied up in companies. They don’t just have the money lying around. There would be no one to buy all these assets. I get the sentiment, that they make money from the work of their employees. At some point companies become to big to fail but when someone is starting a business the personal risks and investment someone takes to grow a company also should be respected.
We don’t produce nearly enough for everyone to be get fully all the things they rely on while barely anyone works. Thats not how the economy would end up working. We need a social safety net, so no complete free market which is toxic but as much as I dislike some billionaires your proposal is just not realistic and fantizises violence without accomplishing anything
Oh yeah and then what. The Worlds 20st richest countries leaders are dead. The world is in chaos and you think communism would solve all problems, just like it did in China, the Soviet Union or Cuba. The people there have no problems right. Violent fanatism jippie!
… And you’re not acting condescending at all towards me