This is a genuine question.
I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.
And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.
For the social agreement society has, it’s irrelevant if you think this person is a hero or a villain, they need to be tried by a jury of their peers in a court of law.
If they are not, then the social agreement that we don’t go around murdering people, no matter the intent changes and life becomes very difficult.
Insurance companies have broken the social agreement and have gone around murdering people.
So the answer seems to be, to take up arms and go murder people our own personal ethics deem should be shot?
What if that’s you? What if someone didn’t agree with your actions and what they had read online, walked up and shot you dead, is that ok?
I don’t know your politics (and don’t really care) what if that guy had not missed, and shot Trump? That ok because trump is a cheat, a felon and will destroy a country to many people, he has destroyed lives, murdered people (via the US Military as commander and chief). He also empowers people like the CEO who got shot. There are a lot of people who think that guy should not be sent to prison had he not missed.
I’m not disagreeing, the guy who was CEO of a company murdering people… 100% agree…
The actions however warrant good discussion on where is the line?
However there has to be some sort of line which is social not personal or we may as just as well start the purge…
You failed miserably here with the phrase “our own personal ethics”. That is the classic MAGA tactic of strawmanning the debate by forcing something on us we did not say. It was THE SOCIAL CONTRACT. That isnt one person’s own ethics; it’s EVERYONE’S.
Just answer the question
Your question is invalid. Maybe you should reframe it more honestly.
That social agreement had been broken long ago by the elites like the one recently targeted. It’s funny that only now when someone finally responds in kind that it is suddenly so important.
Don’t call them that. They’re just assholes with too much money.
I call them the billionaire class. It has the added bonus that it makes it painfully obvious to suburbanites that they aren’t part of the club.
That social agreement is broken because of us, we successively vote corruption into power on both sides and wonder why the system never changes…
The politicians are not the elites in charge. No one gets to vote on the oligarchs killing and plundering the rest of us. There is no agreement that can be had with them so there is nothing to break. The only thing left to do is remove them and water the tree of liberty.
I’ll end this here as I can see your not wanting to discuss. Only reply…
I’m not sure what you think a discussion is if I’m not allowed to reply.
Ok, try answering the question, am I ok to shoot Trump based on the criteria given?
You seem to be under the impression that you’ve asked me that question before. I’m not sure why.
Still, if you want to shoot Trump I’m not going to stop you.
This is the correct answer. This was my position on Snowden and Assange as well.
One of the things that made King such a powerful foil to the status quo was his willingness to submit to the legal system. It put it in everyone’s faces, what was going on in America.
This guy should turn himself in very publicly and go to trial so he can be acquitted by a jury.
(I believe he should be tried but he definitely shouldn’t be convicted or punished.)
And while I fully understand the last statement. This is why it’s a jury of his peers.
Yeah, this is how I feel too. I commend their courage and honestly think this was for the greater good, but I’d also have them prosecuted with some amount of clemency, because otherwise, where do we draw the line? Who’s ok to kill, how do we reason about this? I don’t think it’s ever ok to kill, but I also believe sometimes drastic action such as a kill can lead to good outcomes. This is how we fight against fascism and tyranny too. Nobody expects anyone to remain forever peaceful under tyranny. Of course people fight, and it’s noble to do so. But… context matters. We are not that far yet, so it seems more important to safeguard the general safety of everyday life and have some amount of de facto rule of law that ensures that.
I think this also encourages better, more detailed preparation and planning for those that sacrifice their own safety, health and freedom to help that of others. If they never get caught, we might never need an actual answer to this hard question.
Tell me in so many words how broken the American system is. I mostly agree, just want to emphasize the root problem is the legality of the business practice. The core question remains, sure. The more important questions are imo why is this legal and how can it be changed. The very basics should be that the system doesn’t proliferate practices that inevitably pose such “greater good scenarios”, these should only arise with illegal practices in the first place. Also: the notion of a greater good scenario implies that anything changes - I don’t see anything meaningful changing as of yet. They changed the visibility of leadership on websites ffs . This is so sad.
The core question is simple enough, rule of law needs to be upheld regardless. I just hope the person never gets caught.