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.
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?
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.
Haha, this guy makes the same arguments the vax crowd did during covid.
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.
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?
your link goes to the Wikipedia page on Quakers. am I missing something?