FfaerieOxide

How the hell are you supposed to play the game and “be better” than the opposition, when the opposition is taking advantage of you?

You do that by not murdering them after you have taken power and over the means of production.

Having all the world’s fortune in the hands of about 10 people. We can’t stop this by playing nice and asking nicely.

Alright so you’ve seized all the money in the world and taken over all the land and machinery that enables production through the application of labor via militant witholding of the same. You and your comrades have all the guns.

…why at that point do you need to use those guns to murder people who are no longer holding murderous control over those common resources?

I refuse to acquiesce to or defend a system of belief that requires people die.

Once you win, you don’t kill or you never had moral authority to employ violence in pursuit of winning in the first place.

You good, mate? Do you need a friend or someone to talk to?

“DEBBBBAAAATE MEEEEEEE!”

There’s very little that can be done to reform these people.

Nothing you have tried so far.

How the fuck are we supposed to get the message across when those people have their own militia protecting them and their interests?

Have you ever considered “Progaganda Of The Deed” to encompass modeling being better people than the opposition?

Steven-Chowder-at-a-card-table over here.

I’m not gonna “debate me!” somebody who think murder is cool and good; it isn’t.

“I WILL DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG”

I don’t decide. The state murdering people is wrong. I just have the moral wherewithal to recognize the fact.

Which isn’t hard because it’s objectively true.

Hope this helps.

There is no objective right or wrong here.

No, the state killing people is objectively wrong.

persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them.

You cannot know that, and if you have the ability to strap someone down and end their life, you have no need to do so since you clearly have complete control over their person.

I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle

You shouldn’t be. States qua arbiters of justice should not intentionally kill people under their control.

Some people cannot be rehabilitated.

You can’t know that. You only have evidence for people’s inability to’ve been rehabilitated so far.

I’m just curious what you think the course of action should be at that point?

Not murder.

if they’re miserable, and the people around them are made miserable, and the people trying to help them are made miserable…what do you do?

…drugs?

Alright. I DON’T agree.

You should; death as a post-hoc punishment is abhorrent and serves no one.

state your fucking position.

I already did, and I don’t feel you are arguing in good enough faith—having been willing to concede being trans “is sinful”—to address you in any deeper detail.

You jump on the name thing rather than seeing it as an outcrop of assigning sex and gender and then bitch about it in other threads using disingenuous descriptions that conflate the two but only address the later.

What do you do?

Concede being trans is sinful?

Oh wait no, that’s what you do.

“Okay. What do you think we should do instead?”

Stop doing that. Christ on a cracker.

If I told you “kicking puppies is wrong” would you demand ‘an alternative’ to do instead?
Don’t kick puppies.

Take the money, sure. Then they’re no longer billionaires and there’s no need to kill them.

The way these people affect so many lives negatively with their fraud is much worse than a person committing murder.

Irrespective how is two bad things better than one bad thing? I would think fewer bad things would be net better.

The literal misery they cause to so many people for their own benefit without a fucking iota of shame and their sociopathic behavior is enough to consider eliminating them from society.

You speak of “sociopathic behavior” while advocating state murder. 🤨

While I agree in principle I tend to think there are still unforgivable crimes and irredeemable people out there.

Then you don’t agree.

I wasn’t aware crime was about forgiveness.
I thought in-so-far as societies implemented systems of justice, their purpose was restitution and rehabilitiation.

No one gains anything from a person—irrespective their prior actions—being murdered and we all lose a bit of our soul each time a state execution is allowed to take place.

I really expected better from Vietnam, whose “quarantine at gunpoint” public health policies I heartily endorse.

HAVE NOT STATED AN ALTERNATIVE!

not doing that, Jesus.

The death penalty is always wrong.
Murder is not a punishment and once you’ve stripped her of her ill-got gains there is no longer any reason to kill her.

I notice first off you’re conveniently ignoring how I have been referring to sex designations for the past several posts and instead exclusively focusing on my earlier statement about names.

Makes me doubt your faith, that.

I will broaden and ask why you think any imposition of a gender on a person who has not yet informed you what it is is laudable or appropriate, be that marker on a certificate or a gendered name?

what. is. your. alternative.

Not shoving people into boxes we know aren’t accurate based on a 2 second glance at baby genitals.

Why is that even a thing you want to do?