So is refusing to provide products you were paid to provide, especially when that product is meant to reduce/remove literal human suffering. As in, that is also murder as it directly leads to a dead person in many cases from inability to gain treatment.
As you are clearly pro-death penalty then the only reason this is immoral is that the government didn't get to pull the switch. Which is pure bootlicker logic.
So is refusing to provide products you were paid to provide, especially when that product is meant to reduce/remove literal human suffering. As in, that is also murder as it directly leads to a dead person in many cases from inability to gain treatment.
agreed, which is why the company should have been taken to court. the CEO being murdered doesn't change United Health's shitty practices, it's just catharsis for one person who had enough.
the only change this event will have on the industry will be that they tighten up security. in doing so, they will be looking for more money to spend which means they will be squeezing more out of their customers through their exact same shitty practices.
As you are clearly pro-death penalty then the only reason this is immoral is that the government didn't get to pull the switch. Which is pure bootlicker logic.
it's not that the government didn't sanction it, it's that there was no due process of law. What you argue for here is essentially mob justice, and that is a very dangerous thing. whether it's the government or some other system, there always must be due process before carrying out a sentence.
which is why the company should have been taken to court
In a perfect world yes. There is a reason why vigilantes are considered a symptom of a failed system.
The system has failed, and the average man has no recourse to seek justice against men like Brian. Even if he could bring him (or his company) to court, they have successfully spent infinity dollars lobbying to make their evil "legal." And even if they failed that, they have that same infinity dollars to turn the court case into your destruction, whether by having top end lawyers that destroy yours or dragging it out for so long that you go bankrupt and have to give up.
United has been brought to court many many times, and its done nothing to slow their course or even slightly change their attitudes because its water off their back. But within a day of this happening a similar company completely reversed course on a very unpopular policy change super coincidentally.
Reminding these people that they are human is one of the most important changes we can hope for, as it keeps hesitation in them to do such blatantly evil acts, and this is the most direct way to do that.
it's that there was no due process of law
Yes and its the duty of the government and legal system to make sure due process is both given to everyone and preferable to all other systems.
Once people believe due process is gone, such as by years of kangaroo courts, political activist judges/crimes, and the rich/elite being immune through absurd protections granted to them, then "justice" will be dealt out through methods like this. People will begin to take it into their own hands rather than trusting "civilized methods" like due process.
Big corporations like United are responsible for constantly chipping away at our legal system to protect themselves. In doing so they have completely removed the most important aspect of it, faith. And without that faith, they lose all protections it once offered them.
So again, in a perfect world you would be right. But we don't live in that world, and acting as if we do is how we end up easily abused and manipulated by these same Elites and the Dems.
So if someone is well-known to be going to kill someone, at the planning and setup stage not a big firefight, but 100% going to do it, have done it in the past, and will do it again, with clear plans laid out on how to do it, and a cop shoots the person first, while the cop is cool and collected, cold-blooded, it is immoral?
I'd give you amoral. Immoral's a lot more questionable of a stance. You're pro-death and pro-harm if you declare it's always immoral to stop someone from harming others (even if it causes one person's, the bad agent's, death)
I think we have different definitions of "cold-blooded". the cop scenario you laid out is a situation where a good person kills a bad person to prevent that bad person from doing harm. I would agree that that scenario is justified and would even argue that it is moral.
murdering the CEO does not prevent United health from continuing to do the harm that they do. if anything, they will double down. given this, the only explanation for the murderer I can see is revenge, and that is immoral.
John Brown attacked people that weren't responsible for the actions he was claiming to be punishing.
Is there some elevated reference I'm missing here or are you actually referring to the guy who, after one town was attacked by a mob from another competing town, decided to kill 5 people in a third, unrelated town, as a saint?
I am, because he is. This is uncontroversial in my branch of Christianity. John Brown was the bloody right hand of god, sent to bring the sword to a land that had fallen short of its promise.
>UnitedHealthcare CEO gets whacked
>Japan releases a new manga series about privileged, untouchable aliens getting eaten by downtrodden humans
>all at the same time
based.
he's a murderer and deserves the electric chair.
but based
He deserves infinite ammo and a longer list of targets.
Insewerance company demons deserve a sabbatical at a Cabin in the Woods
You want syrup on that waffle?
to be based is admirable, but it does not make you a good person, and certainly does not absolve being a murderer.
I want to hear the shooter's story before I jump to conclusions about the morality of his actions.
Cold blooded murder is immoral period.
So is refusing to provide products you were paid to provide, especially when that product is meant to reduce/remove literal human suffering. As in, that is also murder as it directly leads to a dead person in many cases from inability to gain treatment.
As you are clearly pro-death penalty then the only reason this is immoral is that the government didn't get to pull the switch. Which is pure bootlicker logic.
agreed, which is why the company should have been taken to court. the CEO being murdered doesn't change United Health's shitty practices, it's just catharsis for one person who had enough.
the only change this event will have on the industry will be that they tighten up security. in doing so, they will be looking for more money to spend which means they will be squeezing more out of their customers through their exact same shitty practices.
it's not that the government didn't sanction it, it's that there was no due process of law. What you argue for here is essentially mob justice, and that is a very dangerous thing. whether it's the government or some other system, there always must be due process before carrying out a sentence.
In a perfect world yes. There is a reason why vigilantes are considered a symptom of a failed system.
The system has failed, and the average man has no recourse to seek justice against men like Brian. Even if he could bring him (or his company) to court, they have successfully spent infinity dollars lobbying to make their evil "legal." And even if they failed that, they have that same infinity dollars to turn the court case into your destruction, whether by having top end lawyers that destroy yours or dragging it out for so long that you go bankrupt and have to give up.
United has been brought to court many many times, and its done nothing to slow their course or even slightly change their attitudes because its water off their back. But within a day of this happening a similar company completely reversed course on a very unpopular policy change super coincidentally.
Reminding these people that they are human is one of the most important changes we can hope for, as it keeps hesitation in them to do such blatantly evil acts, and this is the most direct way to do that.
Yes and its the duty of the government and legal system to make sure due process is both given to everyone and preferable to all other systems.
Once people believe due process is gone, such as by years of kangaroo courts, political activist judges/crimes, and the rich/elite being immune through absurd protections granted to them, then "justice" will be dealt out through methods like this. People will begin to take it into their own hands rather than trusting "civilized methods" like due process.
Big corporations like United are responsible for constantly chipping away at our legal system to protect themselves. In doing so they have completely removed the most important aspect of it, faith. And without that faith, they lose all protections it once offered them.
So again, in a perfect world you would be right. But we don't live in that world, and acting as if we do is how we end up easily abused and manipulated by these same Elites and the Dems.
So if someone is well-known to be going to kill someone, at the planning and setup stage not a big firefight, but 100% going to do it, have done it in the past, and will do it again, with clear plans laid out on how to do it, and a cop shoots the person first, while the cop is cool and collected, cold-blooded, it is immoral?
I'd give you amoral. Immoral's a lot more questionable of a stance. You're pro-death and pro-harm if you declare it's always immoral to stop someone from harming others (even if it causes one person's, the bad agent's, death)
I think we have different definitions of "cold-blooded". the cop scenario you laid out is a situation where a good person kills a bad person to prevent that bad person from doing harm. I would agree that that scenario is justified and would even argue that it is moral.
murdering the CEO does not prevent United health from continuing to do the harm that they do. if anything, they will double down. given this, the only explanation for the murderer I can see is revenge, and that is immoral.
John Brown is a saint, friend.
John Brown attacked people that weren't responsible for the actions he was claiming to be punishing.
Is there some elevated reference I'm missing here or are you actually referring to the guy who, after one town was attacked by a mob from another competing town, decided to kill 5 people in a third, unrelated town, as a saint?
I am, because he is. This is uncontroversial in my branch of Christianity. John Brown was the bloody right hand of god, sent to bring the sword to a land that had fallen short of its promise.
your link goes to the Wikipedia page on Quakers. am I missing something?
I am one. And we think John Brown sits next to Christ.
"Alvis was the holiest man ever to slap iron. He killed for your sins." -Sealab 2021
>UnitedHealthcare CEO gets whacked
>Japan releases a new manga series about privileged, untouchable aliens getting eaten by downtrodden humans
>all at the same time
Someone out there has a sense of humor.