America

[Mellsblue]

I suppose I should be more surprised.

Me too. It still shocks me how true horseshoe theory is and how little people believe in a system of rules. When people are prepared to say hurrah for murdering people they don't like it's a very short step from justifying chattel slavery. "This person doesn't deserve the dignity of a human being".

Lotta "slippery slope" fallacy happening here. It's not so much a case of "people they don't like", it's celebrating the death of a legally protected mass-murderer.

If Putin was assassinated tomorrow, even if people disagreed with celebrating, I doubt they'd say, "it's a short step from justifying slavery if you're happy."

Puja

I’m on my second bottle of red and will regret joining in but where do you draw your line on who is fair game for extra judicial killing?

[Donny osmond]

Me too. It still shocks me how true horseshoe theory is and how little people believe in a system of rules. When people are prepared to say hurrah for murdering people they don't like it's a very short step from justifying chattel slavery. "This person doesn't deserve the dignity of a human being".

Lotta "slippery slope" fallacy happening here. It's not so much a case of "people they don't like", it's celebrating the death of a legally protected mass-murderer.

If Putin was assassinated tomorrow, even if people disagreed with celebrating, I doubt they'd say, "it's a short step from justifying slavery if you're happy."

Puja

I’m on my second bottle of red and will regret joining in but where do you draw your line on who is fair game for extra judicial killing?

I'm seeing off the eggnog.

Am I wrong in thinking that every President or Prime Minister makes decisions - reducing/changing health care systems, welfare payments, etc - that potentially result in many deaths? We seem to be saying that's, if not an exactly a good reason to murder, certainly one that we can understand and even sympathise/empathise with. Find it amusing, etc.

[Mellsblue]

Lotta "slippery slope" fallacy happening here. It's not so much a case of "people they don't like", it's celebrating the death of a legally protected mass-murderer.

If Putin was assassinated tomorrow, even if people disagreed with celebrating, I doubt they'd say, "it's a short step from justifying slavery if you're happy."

Puja

I’m on my second bottle of red and will regret joining in but where do you draw your line on who is fair game for extra judicial killing?

I'm seeing off the eggnog.

Am I wrong in thinking that every President or Prime Minister makes decisions - reducing/changing health care systems, welfare payments, etc - that potentially result in many deaths? We seem to be saying that's, if not an exactly a good reason to murder, certainly one that we can understand and even sympathise/empathise with. Find it amusing, etc.

I was going to make that point re pm/chancellor/health secretary but then thought it would be undermined by the #fact that the assassination of Matt Hancock would have almost universal approval. (Insert tongue in cheek emoji here). You could also kill anyone who voted for the Conservatives, and therefore austerity, in 2010, perhaps? How about killing anyone who voted for Blair in 2005 as it was under their watch that the credit crunch happened which led to austerity. That would then leave only Corbyn acolytes, who would be present but not involved in any assassinations, and Farage acolytes, who would only kill furinners, so all would be well.

[Puja]

Lotta "slippery slope" fallacy happening here. It's not so much a case of "people they don't like", it's celebrating the death of a legally protected mass-murderer.

If Putin was assassinated tomorrow, even if people disagreed with celebrating, I doubt they'd say, "it's a short step from justifying slavery if you're happy."

Puja

I’m on my second bottle of red and will regret joining in but where do you draw your line on who is fair game for extra judicial killing?

Shockingly enough, I'm not keen on extra-judicial killing myself and don't own a gun, so it's not really been important enough for me to sit down and mark out the exact line. I am not endorsing vigilantiism, but I am also not crying salty tears about this particular death. Where would I draw the hypothetical line on who I would feel sorry for getting killed? Don't know, but it's certainly far enough away on this occasion that I don't feel like I'm in any danger of needing to get out the Big Book of Ethics.

I feel like most people have a line that they'd draw somewhere on that scale, especially considering the reaction Corbyn got when he said it was a tragedy that bin Laden had been assassinated rather than brought to justice.

Lotta "slippery slope" fallacy happening here. It's not so much a case of "people they don't like", it's celebrating the death of a legally protected mass-murderer.

If Putin was assassinated tomorrow, even if people disagreed with celebrating, I doubt they'd say, "it's a short step from justifying slavery if you're happy."

Puja

I’m on my second bottle of red and will regret joining in but where do you draw your line on who is fair game for extra judicial killing?

I'm seeing off the eggnog.

Am I wrong in thinking that every President or Prime Minister makes decisions - reducing/changing health care systems, welfare payments, etc - that potentially result in many deaths? We seem to be saying that's, if not an exactly a good reason to murder, certainly one that we can understand and even sympathise/empathise with. Find it amusing, etc.

Seeing off the eggnog and leaping straight down the slippery slope, I see!

There's more than a bit of difference there, mostly based around the words "potentially result in many deaths." There are a lot of degrees of separation between a government policy and potential outcomes involving death - even if we take the worst possible interpretation of a PM's intentions, they are trying to run a country in whatever way seems competent to them.

A CEO of a Yank health insurance company is deliberately and knowingly withholding life-saving treatment from people who have paid for it, because it makes them more money if those people die. It's not a mistake, it's not an unforeseen consequence, it's not a byproduct of another decision, it's not like a PM making a choice where money needs to be spent in one place and cut from another in a trade-off of limited resources, it's not a rationing situation of limited resources, it's no accidental or obfuscated or in any way opaque - it is a literal quid pro quo of, "If I let them die, I get to keep their money."

There's a reason why I'm referring to it as murder rather than corporate manslaughter - it's not making a decision that may/will/could lead to deaths, it is building a business around deliberately letting people die.

Puja

[Donny osmond]

Don't get me wrong, I kinda agree with most of your rationale, although possibly not the conclusion, but at the same time if we're talking about individuals getting money +/or power by making decisions that kill people, it feels slightly like dancing on the head of a pin to label one as a murderer but the other can be simply shrugged off.

Do you not think that a politician, pursuing a political course that will result in civilian deaths (e.g. austerity), with the aim of increasing their vote share is comparable at least in some way with this situation?

[paddy no 11]

Don't get me wrong, I kinda agree with most of your rationale, although possibly not the conclusion, but at the same time if we're talking about individuals getting money +/or power by making decisions that kill people, it feels slightly like dancing on the head of a pin to label one as a murderer but the other can be simply shrugged off.

Do you not think that a politician, pursuing a political course that will result in civilian deaths (e.g. austerity), with the aim of increasing their vote share is comparable at least in some way with this situation?

Austerity usually isn't employed to gain votes, generally some sort of central bank or fiscal council tells the government to sort their shit out

[paddy no 11]

I have zero tears for this dead ceo, if I was a juror I'd be going with an open mind, luigi would have a 50% chance of beating the case

That ceo wasn't much better than a Belgian rubber baron

[Mellsblue]

Lotta "slippery slope" fallacy happening here. It's not so much a case of "people they don't like", it's celebrating the death of a legally protected mass-murderer.

If Putin was assassinated tomorrow, even if people disagreed with celebrating, I doubt they'd say, "it's a short step from justifying slavery if you're happy."

Puja

I’m on my second bottle of red and will regret joining in but where do you draw your line on who is fair game for extra judicial killing?

Shockingly enough, I'm not keen on extra-judicial killing myself and don't own a gun, so it's not really been important enough for me to sit down and mark out the exact line. I am not endorsing vigilantiism, but I am also not crying salty tears about this particular death. Where would I draw the hypothetical line on who I would feel sorry for getting killed? Don't know, but it's certainly far enough away on this occasion that I don't feel like I'm in any danger of needing to get out the Big Book of Ethics.

I feel like most people have a line that they'd draw somewhere on that scale, especially considering the reaction Corbyn got when he said it was a tragedy that bin Laden had been assassinated rather than brought to justice.

If you’re giving tacit approval (i know you’ll disagree with this but it’s how I see it - you either denounce it as completely wrong or you’re giving tacit approval) to extra judicial killings then I’d hope you have thought of where your line is. Mine is that none are acceptable and none should be celebrated or given some weird, imo, moral defence.

I really don’t see the equivalence between Putin, given the rules of war, and I’d say Osborne implementing austerity is closer in equivalence to the CEO than a Putin. Perhaps also Reeves giving an inflation busting payrise to doctors, to go along with tax breaks on their massive pension pots, that will take away funding from the NHS and therefore lead to ‘avoidable’ deaths. Your line on extra judicial deaths is pretty important. Where do you draw the line?

The reaction to Corbyn is probably as much a consequence of his history of the company he’s kept and the sides he’s taken than just Bin Laden’s assassination in isolation. I’d also say that the decision made by an elected head of state also has little equivalence with a vigilante taking it on their own volition to assassinate someone. Also, was killing Bin Laden illegal? I honestly don’t know.

It’s funny how (mostly the same) people who viscerally objected to invading Iraq and toppling the mass murdering, ethnic cleansing, mass grave producing regime of Sadam Hussain because it was illegal seem happy to not worry about the legality of this one. I don’t really see the equivalence but where do you draw the line?

Ultimately, rule of law is farking important for a reason and as soon as it’s undermined it’s a slippery slope.

[Donny osmond]

It’s funny how (mostly the same) people who viscerally objected to invading Iraq and toppling the mass murdering, ethnic cleansing, mass grave producing regime of Sadam Hussain because it was illegal seem happy to not worry about the legality of this one. I don’t really see the equivalence but where do you draw the line?

Ultimately, rule of law is farking important for a reason and as soon as it’s undermined it’s a slippery slope.

This is the main thing for me. Wherever one draws ones subjective line wrt the insurance guy getting gunned down on the street, it is mighty strange how those who assume a moral high ground about Iraq are using those same moral hights to reach a very different conclusion about murder.

[Puja]

The rule of law being the only valid thing is a noble principle, but it falls down somewhat when the setup of the law is so heavily weighted for certain groups. In a country where billionaires own every lever of government and the courts and the law has been continually rewritten to give them protections and rights, I can understand why someone like Mangione felt that the "rule of law" couldn't practically be applied to the insurance company that flagrantly defrauded him and millions of others.

I would like to note, before I get chucked down the slippery slope, thay I am not endorsing everyone going for their gun, but holding up the Rule of Law as being the universal principle can ring hollow when it can't be universally applied.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

But what’s the alternative. Indiscriminate killings?

[Mikey Brown]

Yes. That is the only other option.

[Puja]

But what’s the alternative. Indiscriminate killings?

Sure, sounds fun! Should be a stable and long-lasting system that doesn't have any downsides at all.

What's your alternative? Given I'm assuming you're not actually pledging your troth to the rule of law, regardless of what that law is or who it's written for.

Puja

[cashead]

But why would you have 'tough thinking' to do?

If they let Kyle Rittenhouse off for crossing state lines and shooting activists...

"they"?

The so-called justice system in the US

[Mellsblue]

But what’s the alternative. Indiscriminate killings?

Sure, sounds fun! Should be a stable and long-lasting system that doesn't have any downsides at all.

What's your alternative? Given I'm assuming you're not actually pledging your troth to the rule of law, regardless of what that law is or who it's written for.

Puja

I am, yes, in a democracy. I’m surprised anyone sensible thinks there’s an alternative.

[cashead]

But what’s the alternative. Indiscriminate killings?

It's almost as if it's a consequence of showing that the rule of law is only selectively applied, based on wealth and political views.

[Stom]

But what’s the alternative. Indiscriminate killings?

The thing is, while living in a society that actually does care for its people (despite that care being eroded over the past few decades), while I do not condone the act of murder, I do understand and empathize with the reasons behind it.

I think most people who "laud" him would agree, they just lurch too far in reaction to commentary that is "overly harsh" on him.

We don't live in the US or experience the system they have. I can understand the angst. I can understand the depth of feeling. I do not agree with his conclusion that murder is the only answer, but I CAN understand how he can arrive there in a system that is so crooked.

[Puja]

But what’s the alternative. Indiscriminate killings?

Sure, sounds fun! Should be a stable and long-lasting system that doesn't have any downsides at all.

What's your alternative? Given I'm assuming you're not actually pledging your troth to the rule of law, regardless of what that law is or who it's written for.

Puja

I am, yes, in a democracy. I’m surprised anyone sensible thinks there’s an alternative.

And if that law is written by the rich, for the rich, instantiated by politicians and supported by judges openly paid for by the rich? You're genuinely of the opinion that it's "my law, good or bad"? Really? I'm surprised you're so black-and-white on the subject.

I mean, I'm also surprised that you'd consider the USA to be a functioning democracy (and that's not a shot at Trump, it's been broken for many a decade - Citizens United was a symptom, not a cause).

Puja

[Sandydragon]

The rule of law being the only valid thing is a noble principle, but it falls down somewhat when the setup of the law is so heavily weighted for certain groups. In a country where billionaires own every lever of government and the courts and the law has been continually rewritten to give them protections and rights, I can understand why someone like Mangione felt that the "rule of law" couldn't practically be applied to the insurance company that flagrantly defrauded him and millions of others.

I would like to note, before I get chucked down the slippery slope, thay I am not endorsing everyone going for their gun, but holding up the Rule of Law as being the universal principle can ring hollow when it can't be universally applied.

Puja

There is no excuse for murder.

And let’s not start thinking that this is some poor kid up against the system that only cares about the rich. His family is a long way from being destitute.

This fella was self radicalised and if we can all agree that the American healthcare system is crap, it still does not co done what is effectively an act of terrorism. Changes in a democracy come at the ballot box not via the barrel of a gun.

The difference between this terrorist and those who have killed homosexuals, Muslims etc is that you find this cause to be more acceptable. Call it what it was- a terrorist act. It’s still possible to dislike the US medical system and disavow acts of violence.

[Puja]

But what’s the alternative. Indiscriminate killings?

The thing is, while living in a society that actually does care for its people (despite that care being eroded over the past few decades), while I do not condone the act of murder, I do understand and empathize with the reasons behind it.

I think most people who "laud" him would agree, they just lurch too far in reaction to commentary that is "overly harsh" on him.

We don't live in the US or experience the system they have. I can understand the angst. I can understand the depth of feeling. I do not agree with his conclusion that murder is the only answer, but I CAN understand how he can arrive there in a system that is so crooked.

Well said.

It's also worth pointing out alongisde Stom's point that it's a false dichotomy to offer "rule of law" vs "vigilantiism/indiscriminate killings" as the choice being proffered here, because that's not comparing apples with apples. It's not being proposed that "killing CEOs" replaces the legal system going forwards (although... ). This was a protest*. An extreme and violent protest, and I very much understand people being against it. But it's not being presented as a new form of government and it's specious to demand people explain how they're going to replace the entire legal system if they say they can understand why he did it.

Puja


*To head off the inevitable response, no of course I wouldn't therefore automatically have to be keen on Reform/fascists/everyone taking up this form of protest. For a start, I'm not even condoning it for this issue I agree on, let alone ones that I don't. Secondly, even if I did condone this protest, I don't have to support every other one - things are allowed to have context.

[Puja]

The rule of law being the only valid thing is a noble principle, but it falls down somewhat when the setup of the law is so heavily weighted for certain groups. In a country where billionaires own every lever of government and the courts and the law has been continually rewritten to give them protections and rights, I can understand why someone like Mangione felt that the "rule of law" couldn't practically be applied to the insurance company that flagrantly defrauded him and millions of others.

I would like to note, before I get chucked down the slippery slope, thay I am not endorsing everyone going for their gun, but holding up the Rule of Law as being the universal principle can ring hollow when it can't be universally applied.

Puja

There is no excuse for murder.

And let’s not start thinking that this is some poor kid up against the system that only cares about the rich. His family is a long way from being destitute.

This fella was self radicalised and if we can all agree that the American healthcare system is crap, it still does not co done what is effectively an act of terrorism. Changes in a democracy come at the ballot box not via the barrel of a gun.

The difference between this terrorist and those who have killed homosexuals, Muslims etc is that you find this cause to be more acceptable. Call it what it was- a terrorist act. It’s still possible to dislike the US medical system and disavow acts of violence.

Who was terrorised by this though?

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Sure, sounds fun! Should be a stable and long-lasting system that doesn't have any downsides at all.

What's your alternative? Given I'm assuming you're not actually pledging your troth to the rule of law, regardless of what that law is or who it's written for.

Puja

I am, yes, in a democracy. I’m surprised anyone sensible thinks there’s an alternative.

And if that law is written by the rich, for the rich, instantiated by politicians and supported by judges openly paid for by the rich? You're genuinely of the opinion that it's "my law, good or bad"? Really? I'm surprised you're so black-and-white on the subject.

I mean, I'm also surprised that you'd consider the USA to be a functioning democracy (and that's not a shot at Trump, it's been broken for many a decade - Citizens United was a symptom, not a cause).

Puja

Very much black and white. That’s pretty much how the law works. Otherwise it’s just people killing others as they see fit which, going by everything on this thread, we’re dead set against it when it’s a bunch of Trump supporting, gun totting, red necks from Alabama. Or does the RR politics board cognescenti only get to choose who takes up arms?

[Puja]

I am, yes, in a democracy. I’m surprised anyone sensible thinks there’s an alternative.

And if that law is written by the rich, for the rich, instantiated by politicians and supported by judges openly paid for by the rich? You're genuinely of the opinion that it's "my law, good or bad"? Really? I'm surprised you're so black-and-white on the subject.

I mean, I'm also surprised that you'd consider the USA to be a functioning democracy (and that's not a shot at Trump, it's been broken for many a decade - Citizens United was a symptom, not a cause).

Puja

Very much black and white. That’s pretty much how the law works. Otherwise it’s just people killing others as they see fit which, going by everything on this thread, we’re dead set against it when it’s a bunch of Trump supporting, gun totting, red necks from Alabama. Or does the RR politics board cognescenti only get to choose who takes up arms?

Well, we've found our Javert - now who do we think we should cast for M.Thenardier?

Slavery was lawful. As was (in no particular order) Jim Crow, colonialism, impressment, concentration camps, the Holocaust, apartheid, Indian removal, and plenty of other awful things. Law cannot be the only arbiter of right and wrong actions, black and white, that's how it works, because I can chuck you eight things off the top of my head (six which came from democratic societies!) where it was clearly wicked, but absolutely lawful.

This is not saying we should immediately leap to reductio ad absurdem of "Well, if you're saying we should entirely remove the rule of law, then how would anarchy work???" because that's clearly not what I'm saying. Nor am I saying that killing people is a valid form of protest. What I am saying is that, like so many things worth talking about, it can't just be black and white, right and wrong, because the law is always written by certain people for certain people's benefits, and is very rarely equal or equitable. That's not to say it's inherently bad or we should just chuck the whole thing away, but that you cannot just point to the law and say, "That's the answer, full stop."

Puja

[Donny osmond]

A large number of highly skilled, highly trained, highly intelligent people invest a great deal of time and effort into making the law as equal and equitable as possible.

When the law changed to make slavery illegal, was that done at the point of a gun, or was it done by highly trained, highly intelligent people trying to make the law more equal and equitable?

I agree that the law isn't the only arbiter of right and wrong - being found not guilty in court can often feel like its a long long way away from being 'innocent' of any wrong doing. But the law has to be the foundation, we can't just watch a man gets murdered and have a general feeling of "well he probably deserved it, I'm keeping an open mind, etc". And, again, I suspect what is driving Mells arguments is the willful disrespect for the law, when it suits, from posters who are righteously indignant about law breaking when it suits.

[Puja]

When the law changed to make slavery illegal, was that done at the point of a gun, or was it done by highly trained, highly intelligent people trying to make the law more equal and equitable?

I am trying not to be sarcastic, cause what's "amusing banter" to me can very easily come across as "infuriating deliberate winding-up" when parsed through a text-only messageboard (and I would like to emphasise that the tone should be read as "friendly debate", at least from my side of things!) but that's not a great example given we're talking about America where guns were fairly famously involved in that change...

And, again, I suspect what is driving Mells arguments is the willful disrespect for the law, when it suits, from posters who are righteously indignant about law breaking when it suits.

I would again say that context matters. Yes, I am going to be more exercised about lawbreaking when I disagree with the motives than when I agree with them and I don't think that makes me a hypocrite in the slightest. If I were to evince the opinion that the law was an inviolable north star, then granted, but I don't. I am generally in favour of obeying the law as a commonly agreed set of rules that makes society work, but I won't hold it up as perfect or something that is an unforgivable sin to break - the law shouldn't be a replacement for a moral code or a set of ethics. Context matters, in everything - only really dull things can be reduced down to black and white.

To put it in reductive D&D tropes, Lawful is important, but if there is a clash, Good trumps Lawful, every day of the week. To say Law must be supreme, regardless of the context, leaves you with Javert.

Puja