Democrats = Antifa = BS

Belz... said:
Do you really think they meet in a smoke-filled room to discuss how to better kill Americans? Or perhaps that they're simply acting out of, for example, greed because part of their financing comes from people who really, really don't want to cover preexisting conditions because they fell it's bad for their business?

Just because there is a result for your action doesn't mean the result is your intended goal.
Click to expand...

And willful negligence is of course a defense in manslaughter as well, which really shouldn't be a crime in the first place. Unless their goal was to kill someone the clear and obvious effect that their actions have of killing people is irrelevant.

Their goal is to screw the poor and make money, so the effect that it kills many people can be safely and morally ignored. It is like the boss who chains the firedoor shut, he didn't do it to kill his employees but to stop them from taking smoke breaks, so he is morally and ethically in the clear if his factory burns down with all employees trapped. It would be totally wrong to say that he didn't care about his employees safety as well because how was he to know the factory would burn down? So he is far less morally culpable than these elected officials, who do know that thousands will die from their actions.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Whether they want to kill people, or are willing to let people die so they can get more $$$, they are wrong and immoral. Murder or manslaughter, it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

It matters if you want to be accurate. That's why choosing murder or manslaughter charges is an important decision.

ponderingturtle said:
And willful negligence is of course a defense in manslaughter as well, which really shouldn't be a crime in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes because when you get someone killed it should be murder in the first all the time, regardless of the circumstances or intent, no exception.
 
Belz... said:
It matters if you want to be accurate. That's why choosing murder or manslaughter charges is an important decision.
Click to expand...

To you, maybe. To me, denying vital health care that leads to death is murder, no matter the motivation.

Yes because when you get someone killed it should be murder in the first all the time, regardless of the circumstances or intent, no exception.
Click to expand...

If the actions are known to cause death, pretty much. The consequence of not being able to eat at a restaurant peacefully doesn't really fit the crime.
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
To you, maybe. To me, denying vital health care that leads to death is murder, no matter the motivation.
Click to expand...


I suppose you also think that any legislation that leads to death is murder. If so, you probably would agree that every legislation is murder, and that every member of congress is a murderer.

Well then there's no discussion to be had.
 
Belz... said:
I suppose you also think that any legislation that leads to death is murder. If so, you probably would agree that every legislation is murder, and that every member of congress is a murderer.

Well then there's no discussion to be had.
Click to expand...

Why would renaming a post office lead to anyone dying in any forseeable way?

Just as an example of trivial legislation that often gets passed.
 
But the point is making "Life and Death Decisions" is literally what a government does.

By this logic any civility is immoral because if you don't get your way people are gonna die.

So where does this stop? Health Care? Safety Standards? Environmental Standards? Foreign Policy? Is everyone who disagrees with you on any of those a murderer?
 
Last edited:
Mumbles said:
Why would renaming a post office lead to anyone dying in any forseeable way?
Click to expand...

Very nice. You've deliberately missed the point by taking an absurd interpretation of 'legislation'. As usual, the level of discussion on this forum is really incredible.

Let's try something different. Is it murder to declare war on another country and send troops to, say, defend Kuwait? Is it murder to pass legislation to restrict gun ownership if this leads to one person not having a gun to defend themselves and dying to a home invasion?

You can't possibly argue that voting for legislation that results in deaths is murder.
 
JoeMorgue said:
So where does this stop? Health Care? Safety Standards? Environmental Standards? Is everyone who disagrees with you on any of those a murderer?
Click to expand...

Yes. If they relax safety standards that knowingly results in death, yes. If they relax environmental standards, knowing that it kills people, yes. If they prevent healthcare to people that will die without it, yes.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yes. If they relax safety standards that knowingly results in death, yes. If they relax environmental standards, knowing that it kills people, yes. If they prevent healthcare to people that will die without it, yes.
Click to expand...

In that case you'd better get used to having murderers as representatives, because their job is making decisions that result in murder. But the problem is your definition, not the job or their decision, in this case.

Seriously, can we simply discuss whether a piece of legislation is a good idea or not rather than engaging in hysterical accusations of murder?
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yes. If they relax safety standards that knowingly results in death, yes. If they relax environmental standards, knowing that it kills people, yes. If they prevent healthcare to people that will die without it, yes.
Click to expand...

And we're back to the whole "If you really believed that you'd be waging guerrilla warfare in the streets, not arguing on the internet."

I mean seriously how many people have died in the time you typed that post? That was time you could have been using to stop the Republicans. How do you sleep at night murder?
 
I love the fact that we have one right-winger saying the left is the main source of violence in this country and another blathering on & on & on about how the left isn't violent enough.
 
Oh I'm a right winger again? Okay I'll head back over to another thread where I'm a left winger. I cannot keep track.
 
Delvo said:
I love the fact that we have one right-winger saying the left is the main source of violence in this country and another blathering on & on & on about how the left isn't violent enough.
Click to expand...

Who's blathering on about the left not being violent enough?
 
Belz... said:
Very nice. You've deliberately missed the point by taking an absurd interpretation of 'legislation'. As usual, the level of discussion on this forum is really incredible.
Click to expand...

It was a joke, man.

(although it's always worth keeping that kind of trivial bill in mind, especially whenever you see those "Senator Bigbird voted with President Evil 98% of the time!" statistics.)

Let's try something different. Is it murder to declare war on another country and send troops to, say, defend Kuwait? Is it murder to pass legislation to restrict gun ownership if this leads to one person not having a gun to defend themselves and dying to a home invasion?

You can't possibly argue that voting for legislation that results in deaths is murder.
Click to expand...

I disagree. You can claim that it's not legally murder, but quite a few people are discussing morals/ethics, not legality. I myself have said that I don't care about legality in certain cases, as I find that the law simply did not reflect what was just.
 
Mumbles said:
I disagree. You can claim that it's not legally murder, but quite a few people are discussing morals/ethics, not legality. I myself have said that I don't care about legality in certain cases, as I find that the law simply did not reflect what was just.
Click to expand...

It's not just not legally murder; it's not murder.

Again, if you look closely, a LOT of laws result in deaths, directly or otherwise. It's irrational to call murderer anyone who voted for that law or, to take the insanity even further, anyone who voted for that representative murderer as well.

Voting for budget cuts, budget increases, new laws, repeals, etc. always carries the risk that someone's going to get hurt or killed because of it. If that's murder for you, then I don't think you should involve yourself in political discussions because you don't have the stomach for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom