The assassination of United Healthcare's CEO is a real life trolley problem, and a select few are trying to argue to save all lives while the train is going to kill the masses.
The assassination of United Healthcare's CEO is a real life trolley problem, and a select few are trying to argue to save all lives while the train is going to kill the masses.
It appears that in every thread about this event there is someone calling everyone else in the thread sick and twisted for not proclaiming that all lives are sacred and being for the death of one individual.
It really is a real life trolley problem because those individuals are not seeing the deaths caused by the insurance industry and not realizing that sitting back and doing nothing (i.e. not pulling the lever on the train track switch) doesn't save lives...people are going to continue to die if nothing is done.
Taking a moral high ground and stating that all lives matter is still going to costs lives and instead of it being a few CEOs it will be thousands.
You're viewing a single thread.
I love this "greater good" end-run-around the law that we follow as members of society; like premeditated murder of a soulless CEO is somehow okay.
How is ambushing ever not weak and cowardly? Swords at dawn if you're going to make it personal.
This is not how we solve this. Killers are tried and punished in accordance with laws we all agree on, here.
What you're missing, I think, is that ambushing isn't weak or cowardly. It's just setting up the most favorable conditions for the "fight" as possible.
If you're engaging in an unbalanced war, and anyone targeting a rich target would be since the ability to hire security means you'll be going against superior numbers from the beginning, you use the tactics available to you.
You may or may not agree that it's a war. You might not agree that the shooter is justified. But the shooter most likely is at war in their mind, or (assuming it is part of things) someone that hired them does.
We aren't allowed to duel, and someone challenged to one has no obligation to agree to it. You can't usually even make the challenge without running into legal barriers. You send a letter to someone saying "hey, let's have a sword fight", expect a knock on your door. It simply isn't an option. You can't even arrange trial by champions, where you would face off against a chosen opponent and the other person would be bound by the outcome.
Again, regardless of whether or not you agree or like it, class warfare can be literal, at least in the minds of the people willing to wage such a war. Further, when one person uses their weapons to cause death and misery to non combatants, you can't be surprised when those non combatants find weapons of their own and fight back any way they can.
That's the thing you're missing. From the state of mind of the populace, the CEO I question has a track record of causing death and misery by using the weapons of wealth and power. This means that the question isn't one of peace time, it's a question, for that frame of mind, of using the best tactics to achieve a goal.
Like it or not, the shooter achieved the goal of disrupting the machinery of that company, at least temporarily. They achieved the goal of making it known that wealth is not bulletproof, which is a very strong idea when the populace feels disempowered. That isn't cowardice, that's just good tactics. It may or may not end up being good strategy, but only time can show that.
If people are in a state of war, and I promise you that a shit ton of people do view the current assault on humanity by financial means as war, then ambush is a perfect tool for asymmetric warfare. It's a tool to magnify your forces.
Bootlicker spotted.
Also, tell this to people'a face who got denied health insurance coverage, coward