Anonymous #1 23h

Is it wrong when a soldier murders someone? Genuine question.

59

Anonymous stoner22 23h

It depends on the situation, who is the soldier murdering

-15

Anonymous #1 23h

An enemy combatant

50

Anonymous #3 22h

I’m convinced he isn’t, and have only become more so as his prosecution has gone on.

25

Then it sounds like you agree the shooter did nothing wrong, since he killed an enemy combatant in a preexisting, deadly, violent conflict.

39

Anonymous #1 22h

If the person being murdered affects whether murder is wrong, then you're agreeing with OP 🤣

35

Anonymous #9 21h

They would be sad, but I’d also likely alienate a lot of the people in my life if I became a healthcare CEO that made profits off of sick and dying people

26

Anonymous #5 21h

well its still wrong to kill somebody both legally, morally, and doesn’t benefit anyone since the company still exists.

-11

Anonymous #9 21h

Legally, yes Morally? I think there’s cases where murder is justified. This might be one of them; Brian Thompson was an evil, cruel man. Plus, the murder had a chilling effect on UHC that certainly helped people. Employees were scared to sign letters denying insurance coverage. Some physicians quit their jobs.

36

Anonymous #1 20h

It is incredibly so and it’s even more wrong to allow a singular man to sign ppls death sentences when they have paid thousands upon thousands to avoid a death sentence and get medical coverage. One is justice thats been a long time overdue.

23

Anonymous #9 20h

Well I haven’t murdered thousands of ppl who’ve paid for my home and pool and yacht so they can get life saving medical coverage only for me to add a quota to who receive it and who will die or suffer 🤷‍♂️

20

Anonymous #9 20h

“Killing people is always morally wrong” is the most historically illiterate take a person can give

24

Anonymous #9 20h

“Doesn’t benefit anyone” and yet so many testimonies came out rejoicing that their family members get to live.

20

Anonymous stoner22 19h

Sure, that would be permissible. But in no way could you define what happened as that

0

Anonymous #7 19h

Well I mean the person being murdered DOES affect whether its right or wrong. But in this case it wouldn’t qualify as an enemy combatant

0

Anonymous #10 19h

But where does the line end? Is anyone that has allowed for/caused unnecessary death eligible for the vigilante death penalty?

5

Anonymous #9 19h

Nobody gets killed JUST for being in a position of power, dipshit. It’s about what they do with the power when they’re in those positions

18

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 18h

I'm sorry but the CEO of an insurance company is not a combatant in any conflict.

-4

Anonymous #1 18h

why are you working so hard to defend someone who made billions of dollars by denying health insurance claims to sick and dying Americans?

24

Anonymous #13 18h

Depends on how you define it. He probably killed more people than any individual bomb (except for two) in human history

15

Anonymous #12 17h

That doesn't make him a military combatant lmao, that makes him a greedy CEO. Greedy CEOs are dealt with through the the legal process. I'm not mourning his death or anything but at the end of the day he was still violently killed for no reason (wasn't an active threat to anyones safety). And frankly denying money for someone's healthcare is (while still fucked up) not being an active threat to anyone, there was no reason to shoot him besides the fact they didn't like him. That's still murder.

-3

Anonymous #12 17h

Not a murder I'm sad over, but it was a murder.

0

Anonymous #13 16h

CEO’s AREN’T dealt with through the legal process tho dumbass, that’s the only goddam reason any of us even know luigi’s name 🤦

13

Anonymous #13 16h

Greedy CEOs are no longer dealt with through the legal process fast enough lmao

17

Anonymous #5 16h

They’re not even dealt with through it at all. None of them ever face any punishments except fines, which are ALWAYS paid for by their companies anyway

6

Anonymous #13 16h

If he’s killing people and/or directing others to do so for the material gain of his party, then yeah he’s a combatant.

15

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 16h

just because someone does something you don't like doesn't make them a combatant. and running your company a certain way is not the same as actively killing people. not helping people that are dying is also not killing people. doing nothing is not killing people. killing people is killing people. if i disagree with something you stand for does that mean you're a combatant in that conflict and i have the right to murder you now?

0

Anonymous #13 16h

He was structurally violent

10

Anonymous #13 16h

Yeah no, if anyone dies unjustly because of you then that makes you a combatant as far as I’m concerned. I don’t give a fuck about your semantics

13

Anonymous #13 16h

Incorrect

17

Anonymous #13 16h

Isn’t the CEO the same guy who made like an algorithm to more efficiently deny people’s claims? Is he not directly responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths, for the sake of profit? What would you call that? I would call it murder…

23

Anonymous moderatemonkey 16h

i don't give a fuck if he opened a scam insurance company and never paid anyone a single dime. that's a crime, but it ain't murder. it's fraud. and in the civilized world, we don't murder people for fraud. we put them in jail. should we just gun down everyone who's ever committed fraud?

-3

Anonymous #13 16h

If my actions make people die, then yeah I’m killing them.

17

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 16h

That on its own doesn’t give you the right to retaliate though (Thompson’s death was justified but the deaths he caused were not, for example)

5

Anonymous #13 16h

if their fraud has led to deaths of thousands yeah that seems fair

12

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 16h

but his actions didn't make people die. he just didn't save their lives. they were dying anyways.

-2

Anonymous #5 16h

again, those actions don't lead to deaths. it just leads to the absence of saving the lives of people who were ALREADY dying with or without that particular CEOs involvement. if he was going around actually making people sick and causing their deaths, then he'd be killing people.

-3

Anonymous #13 16h

Except that’s not true? He literally changed policies to make it more difficult to get healthcare coverage?

6

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 16h

If I see someone dying on the sidewalk and I don't perform CPR or anything does that mean I killed that person? Should I then be murdered for being a killer?

-3

Anonymous #5 16h

That's not murder. That's fraud.

-2

Anonymous #13 16h

Poor analogy bc he actively made choices that took away people’s coverage

12

Anonymous #13 16h

Legally, the word you're looking for in that scenario is NEGLECT. Which, yes, is considered killing someone in a medical context.

8

Anonymous #13 15h

Except he’s not walking on the sidewalk either, he’s the highest-ranking executive at the company making decisions on whether people live or die, and he directly benefits by letting more people die, and he chose to take these benefits. Is that not morally condemnable? Is that not violent?

10

Anonymous #13 15h

It is neglecting someone's medical needs over the monetary desires of the company.

10

Anonymous #13 15h

You’re arguing the semantics of the definition of the word murder when THOUSANDS (probably more like tens or even hundreds of thousands) of people died because of him. Genuinely what’s the fucking point? At the end of the day, all of those people are still dead because of him, and you’re still a bootlicker

6

Anonymous #12 15h

not because of him though. that's what i'm trying to get across. he just failed to save their lives he didn't kill them. both bad but distinctly different things.

-3

Anonymous #13 15h

He didn't FAIL to save their lives, he CHOSE not to.

10

Anonymous #7 15h

sure he chose not to save lives still not the same as killing someone

-3

Anonymous #13 15h

Lmao you're an idiot

10

Anonymous #13 15h

He killed them when he chose to have his employees deny claims for profit. If it were a literal cliffhanger type scenario and he wasn’t able to hold their weight THEN it would have been a failure to save them. When he had the ability to save them and KNEW they’d die without his help (for the services they already paid for!!!!!) then they absolutely did die because of him.

13

Anonymous #13 15h

Why are you so dead set on defending this ceo? Genuine question. He’s done nothing but bring pain to people, what’s even the point of dickriding him so hard? What are you getting out of this?

12

Anonymous #5 15h

Murder is only wrong when it’s people I like? That’s a dumb argument

-4

Anonymous #1 15h

Nobody’s arguing that, dipshit. Nice strawman tho 🤡🤡🤡

16

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 15h

“If my actions make people die, then yeah im killing them” Would you be in favor of someone getting murdered if they were found at fault for an accident that took a life?

-3

Anonymous #1 15h

This isn’t an accident, though? This was clearly purposeful?

3

Anonymous #13 15h

His actions (creating a system to deny people’s insurance claims as efficiently as possible) directly resulted in the death of people, which he was most assuredly aware of, but didn’t care because their deaths meant he took home more money. He killed people for money… at least Luigi (or whoever did it) did it for the love of the game.😉

14

Anonymous #13 15h

In many (most?) jurisdictions if you are CPR certified and decline to render aid to someone needing it, you are liable for their death as a matter of law. That’s already the norm. And again, killing on its own doesn’t justify getting killed. I already stated that it takes more to get there.

16

Anonymous #1 15h

Of course not, but that’s completely irrelevant to this discussion of willfully causing many deaths for personal gain.

8

Anonymous moderatemonkey 15h

Luigi didn’t do it for the love of the game, if he did it it was because he was so fucking fed up with the bullshit system that it drove him to extremes. Don’t get it twisted, this is only the result of corporate greed and nothing more

11

Anonymous #12 15h

Figure of speech.

8

Anonymous moderatemonkey 15h

You need to be extremely careful with your wording then. Statements like that make him look like some crazed psychopath when he was just a reasonable man driven to extremes by unreasonable circumstances. It only hurts the movement here more than anything

5

Anonymous #12 13h

i'm not defending the CEO i'm pointing out the fact that him getting shot in the back for no real reason is still a murder and should be handled as such.

-4

Anonymous #13 13h

“For no real reason” is literally you defending him.

12

Anonymous moderatemonkey 13h

just admitting you love killing for the love of killing lmao

-3

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 13h

Nobody is punished for not rendering aid for something they have no relation too that's ridiculous lmao

-3

Anonymous #13 13h

Also got nothing to do with this convo. Maybe stop saying ridiculous stuff if you already know that’s what it is.

6

Anonymous #12 13h

I wouldn't call someone who assasinates a CEO "reasonable" per se but yeah he was a normal dude with anger and he let it consume him

-4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 13h

so you think that just running a company in a bad way is a perfectly valid reason for people being assassinated? (shot in the back no less which is pussy shit) i thought you were studying law man surely you can see the problem with that

0

Anonymous #13 13h

“Getting shot in the back for no real reason” is a weird way of saying got karmic payback for killing thousands of Americans

1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 13h

that's what you said 💀 good lord can't even read something with an open your mind over your self righteous bullshit ego clearly he was murdered by every legal definition possible

-2

Anonymous #5 13h

that's not karmic payback that's bloodlust rage, again i'm not shedding any tears but i call it like i see it it's very simple, man got mad, man murdered someone he thought his anger was best directed at. still a murder.

-2

Anonymous #13 13h

Yes, legally he was murdered. Morally, that’s not relevant. Legally, John Brown was a murderer too and you know what? He was a hero.

7

Anonymous #13 13h

legality and morality can be different, legally it’s murder, morally its justifiable imo bc his deliberate policy choices killed thousands

5

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 12h

I never said it was morally wrong did I? I said it was murder. Like I said a million times, I shed no tears for that man. Just think it's funny people won't call it murder. Glad you're not THAT delusional, especially if you want to be working in law

-2

Anonymous #12 11h

He didn't kill anyone.

0

Anonymous #10 11h

Fake testimonies with made up chains of causation

-5

Anonymous #15 10h

Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s fake and dude are you being so for real right now you really think that insurance companies haven’t been well known to be predatory as fuck? It’s not only like a proven fact that insurance companies jack up our medical prices and fuck up our healthcare but they deny claims left and right with quotas on how many people get to live. What rock have you been living under lmao

3

Anonymous #13 9h

I didn’t say that in the slightest?💀

6