“They kill innocent people, so it’s okay if we kill innocent people” is not the moral argument you think it is.
But you want people reading this exchange to worry about proverbial innocent person who might die if keep praising the shooter for a job well done?
Yes. Yes I do. Because I pay attention to what happens when vigilantes find the wrong person.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna11125863
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin
https://6abc.com/archive/6851290/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2928387/vigilante-family-including-teen-19-shoots-neighbor-dead/
Something tells me you wouldn’t be so willing to have someone misidentify and then attack or kill you or someone you care about. But it’s okay when it’s an innocent stranger, right?
I wouldn’t be willing to have my health insurance claims denied but here we are
You are entitled to your opinion and each American make up their own minds
That does not address a single thing I said. Don’t change the subject. I was talking about vigilantism, not insurance claims.
Your bloodlust for killing the innocent when it is “necessary” is noted.
How many innocent people it is acceptable to kill per CEO? 1? 10? 100? 1000? What’s the maximum number here you’ll accept? How about if someone throws a bomb on top of a CEO in the middle of a city and it kills everyone around him? Acceptable? What if the CEO is with their baby at the time and the baby gets shot too? Fine to shoot a baby as long as the CEO dies?
I want to know where your line is, but I have a feeling you’ll try to change the subject again rather than respond.
We’ve reached an impasse, readers can make up their own minds on this topic.
