Luigi Mangione, who is charged with first-degree murder in the ambush killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, made the comments on a website set up by his defense.
And I didn’t say it did. But when a bunch of people say you’re doing something shitty, it isn’t a bad idea to take a few moments and ask, “Am I?” And coming back at them for saying it is never a good look, even if you’re right.
It’s 1800 and I’m against slavery, should I “take a few moments” and ask, “I’m in the minority, maybe they’re right?”? It’s 1935 Germany, is it “never a good look” to say that Jews are not in fact evil vermin? Etc. This is morality we’re talking about. The votes don’t matter.
You keep acting like I said the majority think something so they must be right. Yes, I think if you were living in those examples that you should take a good look at why you believe differently than the majority and be able to defend it. No, I don’t think, even in those situations, spouting off on people disagreeing with you without giving an adequate defense of your position and merely that they’re hating because of your differing position is useful and is going to convince someone of your stance.
It’s me spouting off on people? Have you seen the comments I’ve received? What do you make of them?
In other comments in the thread I’ve gone on for paragraphs and paragraphs about exactly why I believe what I believe. If you really are interested, then read them. It boils down to: I’m against murder as defined by the law, and I think political violence is dangerous and counter-productive.
Ah, so you’re edit in the original post was justified because they started it. Is that how morality works? They started the mud slinging, so it’s okay now?
I did read your posts, and commented on others, and I agree with your stance. I’m pretty sure JFK did, to. It’s basically the corollary of, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution impossible.” So what peaceful solution do you propose to solve the healthcare problem in America given the state of your government for the last number of decades, and is it really a peaceful revolution if thousands are administratively killed in the process? And is that better or worse than killing a few people in the streets who have amassed obscene levels of wealth by promoting those deaths to make that happen a little faster, whether that be due to legislation or sudden policy reversals due to newfound altruism?
There are no easy answers in morality. This is why philosophers have written so many books about it.
So what peaceful solution do you propose to solve the healthcare problem in America given the state of your government
It’s not my government. I live in Europe and benefit from cheap universal healthcare. Boringly, I suggest that Americans pull the levers of their still-functional democracy, of which there are many. And then exercise some patience. Because the alternative - the inevitable authoritarian backlash to political violence - is worse.
And I didn’t say it did. But when a bunch of people say you’re doing something shitty, it isn’t a bad idea to take a few moments and ask, “Am I?” And coming back at them for saying it is never a good look, even if you’re right.
It’s 1800 and I’m against slavery, should I “take a few moments” and ask, “I’m in the minority, maybe they’re right?”? It’s 1935 Germany, is it “never a good look” to say that Jews are not in fact evil vermin? Etc. This is morality we’re talking about. The votes don’t matter.
You keep acting like I said the majority think something so they must be right. Yes, I think if you were living in those examples that you should take a good look at why you believe differently than the majority and be able to defend it. No, I don’t think, even in those situations, spouting off on people disagreeing with you without giving an adequate defense of your position and merely that they’re hating because of your differing position is useful and is going to convince someone of your stance.
It’s me spouting off on people? Have you seen the comments I’ve received? What do you make of them?
In other comments in the thread I’ve gone on for paragraphs and paragraphs about exactly why I believe what I believe. If you really are interested, then read them. It boils down to: I’m against murder as defined by the law, and I think political violence is dangerous and counter-productive.
Ah, so you’re edit in the original post was justified because they started it. Is that how morality works? They started the mud slinging, so it’s okay now?
I did read your posts, and commented on others, and I agree with your stance. I’m pretty sure JFK did, to. It’s basically the corollary of, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution impossible.” So what peaceful solution do you propose to solve the healthcare problem in America given the state of your government for the last number of decades, and is it really a peaceful revolution if thousands are administratively killed in the process? And is that better or worse than killing a few people in the streets who have amassed obscene levels of wealth by promoting those deaths to make that happen a little faster, whether that be due to legislation or sudden policy reversals due to newfound altruism?
There are no easy answers in morality. This is why philosophers have written so many books about it.
It’s not my government. I live in Europe and benefit from cheap universal healthcare. Boringly, I suggest that Americans pull the levers of their still-functional democracy, of which there are many. And then exercise some patience. Because the alternative - the inevitable authoritarian backlash to political violence - is worse.