you are joking, right?
Comment on Bang!
Beeen132@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
It absolutely does. Absolutely disgusting the number of times I have to read in this community that it’s okay to kill because of blah blah blah. Horrible people! You are all horrible people for supporting such an anti-life mindset!
personalhel@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Beeen132@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
I’m not. Do you even have an argument?
personalhel@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
you could start by opening a history book and realize progress is never reached outside of power structures with a credible threat of violence. do you seriously think we should not have executed the rest of the top nazos after ww2?
Beeen132@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Yes I think we should not have killed them. What an easy way out for them…
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
You consider someone anti-life because they refuse to stand by idly while someone kills others?
Beeen132@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
No. I consider someone anti-life that argues killing is basically okay if you think it’s okay. It’s a made up comic and not one of us really knows what the bad guy did.
But the tone in this comment section feels more like: yeah sure killing others is totally fine if we just find a reason to feel good about it. Wtf? What low level trigger would be okay for you to kill another person without feeling bad?
I’m not the police on a specific mission and I’m not in a country where we have mass shooting. But even in this case I would argue that we badly need to find ways to prevent mass shooting instead of being okay with killing the shooter.
As for crime in general… The more civilized society is the one without the death penalty.
Dehumanizing imaginary people and ease of mind with it, that’s what’s happening here.
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
I consider someone anti-life that argues killing is basically okay if you think it’s okay. It’s a made up comic and not one of us really knows what the bad guy did.
The point of the comic is that many stories in comics and other media try to introduce a last-minute moral dilemma in which the good guy stopping a bad guy is made out to be as bad as the bad guy. Often it’s a lazy mechanism that doesn’t work from a writing standpoint because the reader/viewer has experienced the entire story solely from the protagonist’s POV, empathizing with and seeing the victims of the ‘bad guy’, and never the bad guy’s view, and suddenly asking them to empathize with the ‘bad guy’ at the last moment with this lazy argument doesn’t actually work. That’s what this comic is about.
But the reason this is likely resonating with more people right now outside of commentary on literary tropes, is that people are experiencing a world in which many governments have broken the social contract to execute justice fairly and protect their populaces, and sided with companies and wealth-holders in allowing them to harm said populace. Given that backdrop, and recent reactions by billionaires and CEOs (e.g. Flock’s CEO’s recent call for “compromise” in which he gets to keep surveilling people), this comic may feel for many people very personal.
I would argue that we badly need to find ways to prevent mass shooting instead of being okay with killing the shooter.
Sure, but that is dodging the question of whether you accept that killing someone may be necessary to prevent them harming others.
As for crime in general… The more civilized society is the one without the death penalty.
I agree 1000%, because a government can never be trusted to actually serve the interest of its constituents. It will always be pulled towards accumulating and protecting power. That’s the nature of Authority.
Ultimately, you can’t claim to believe in preserving life above all else if you refuse to stop something that is threatening life. The “pro-life” reaction to a Hitler is not to refuse to intervene in a Holocaust. You can personally choose not to take action, but you don’t get to dictate to others when and what the line is between pro- and anti-life actions.
Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Just so I understand your argument:
-
Killing is morally wrong.
-
Therefore, anyone who kills is morally equivalent to anyone else who kills, regardless of motive, scale, necessity, or circumstance.
-
So killing a mass murderer makes you just as bad as the mass murderer.
Is that your position?
Beeen132@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
-
Yes.
-
No. Reality is more complex.
-
Trying to convince yourself that killing another human being is something to feel good about is always stupid and primitive. That is what my comments are about, and as I understand it, what this discussion is about. We built complex societies so we wouldn’t have to live by the rule of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” and I am not going to turn back on that path just because of Trump, Putin, or Netanjahu. The truth is, the vast majority of people living all over the world are ordinary people who deserve love, justice, and a future.
And yes, you shoot at the mass shooter. But where I live, police officers are trained so that the perpetrator survives—in order to subject him to his just! punishment. Which is not death.
-
-
Enzy@feddit.nu 2 weeks ago
Bang!
FreddiesLantern@leminal.space 2 weeks ago
That is assuming everyone plays by the rules.
As it turns out, some particular people have turned playing outside of the rules as much as possible and as cruely as possible into a sport.
They won’t be corrected by the rules. They won’t be persuaded by common human decency. Quite the contrary even, they actively and aggressively lean into the opposite direction.
Now it’s against the rules to derail a train. But how much more tragic would it be not to do so if that train is about to run into a hospital?
That of course being a lazy metaphor but I think my point stands.
Death penalties, war crimes, … all things that are suposed to be accepted as par for the course. But for the elite…oh no, that’s a finger waggin.
Killing is wrong, but it is most definitely not a monochrome issue.
Beeen132@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
It does not. Criminals by definition do not play by the rules and we as a society have found many ways to deal with them without killing them.
I’m not arguing against justice.
I’m just saying, that, on a fundamental level, it is never okay to kill another person or make up stupidly simplified metaphors to justify killing.
It’s dehumanizing brain rot and if you guys can’t see that you’re really not much better than the made up devils you wish to kill.
FreddiesLantern@leminal.space 2 weeks ago
“No. Criminals by definition do not play by the rules and we as a society have found many ways to deal with them without killing them.”
Have we? Because last time I checked we still have genocides going on without as much as a slap on the wrist.
Beeen132@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Yes we have and when you look at the last century you will see a lot of progress.
What I understand of your comment, based on the context of the post, is, that because things are bad it’s okay for us to be bad as well. That’s really the easiest way to fool yourself.