I said something along the lines of:
“Wow, I haven’t had a reason to smile ear to ear in a while.”
Along with
“Nah, the more dead corpos dragons, the better.”
In response to some liberal going off about how violence is never the solution, not mentioning how this murdered dipshit has personally overseen a system that perpetuates harm, suffering and death (violence) in the name of profit.
…
Good ole’ civility clause.
Whats the paradox of tolerance?
.world mods have never heard of it I guess.
In this situation at least someone would die. It’s like the trolley problem; not playing it is playing it for one side.
Not wishing for the death of that PoS is effectively the same as wishing the death of his victims.
So, following your (frankly stupid, oversimplistic, short-sighted) reasoning, there’s no good person.
Things are never simple. And the only ones who claim otherwise are the ones who are OK being a dead weight and a burden to the others, due to their short-sightedness.
Like you are doing - you’re effectively praising the death and suffering of poor people because of some “alas, poor CEO”.
If you think the company will somehow magically stop denying people simply because the CEO died, then you are naive. This isn’t a trolley problem. You are celebrating someones death, good people do not do that. It is simple. You just want it to not be, so you can tell yourself “I am a good person” and carry on as you were, with hate in your heart.
Someone got a crystal ball! They claim to know what others think! No, wait, it’s just a liar/assumer/bullshitter putting words in my mouth, while changing the goalposts from “the morality of cheering some PoS dying” to “the impact of the PoS’s death”.
But answering your bullshit, no, I don’t think that the company will stop denying people because the PoS kicked the bucket. Or because people are cheering his death. And this does not change the morality of cheering his death or, in your case, effectively cheering the death of his victims. Is this clear now?
Side note: your “it’s that simple.” can be safely rephrased as “it’s complex but the complexity inconveniences me, so I’m smearing mud over my eyes to not see it and I expect others to do the same”. The morality behind the value of life becomes a bloody mess in situations where the dead is responsible for other deaths.
You literally called it a trolley problem as if their death would magically change how the company works. You talked about the impact of his death, not me.
Even if it did, cheering for someone’s death is bad. It comes from hatred. All you are doing is convincing yourself that an objectively bad thing to do is good, so you can sleep better at night. That’s why you feel the need to insult me. It’s not a complex situation with nuances. You want to hate the person that died, you want to celebrate their death. That makes you a bad person.
I did not call it a trolley problem; I compared it with one, in a very specific way (“not playing it is playing it for one side”). That’s why there’s a bloody “like” there.
Still confusing your assumptions with what I said.
As I already explained, this simplistic = idiotic view goes out of the window once the someone in question is responsible for earlier deaths.
Now assuming what motivates people. *rolls eyes*
Sorry to be blunt but if you’re going to make shit up non-stop, as you are doing, I’m not going to waste my time further with you.