Would you kill bad people using a death note? Would you kill those that did?
Edit: I intentionally put "bad people" in the title in order to provoke. 😊
If you don't know what I'm talking about:
Black Mirror - Hated in the Nation
I'm not sure how to limit the scope of this discussion, since it touches upon so many areas of morale:
- the value of life
- the right to kill
- vengeance/revenge
- crime
- good and evil
So I encourage you to be articulate and to follow some structure: "what(thesis) - why(evidence) - what (thesis)". Other easy to follow variations, such as "why(background + evidence) - what(thesis)" or "what - why - what - by the way(discussion)" or just a simple "what" are of course good too. I'm not trying exclude comments, and I won't, just encouraging an easy to read discussion. As for me:
I would not kill using a Death Note, unless for some utterly personal vendetta. I would also not kill those that did, if we were talking about some sort of society wide phenomenon. I believe that taking action against human life on the macro scale, such as a nation state against another or such as one confined justice system against one of its subjects (state versus an individual, for instance) or in the fictive case of the above mentioned media, is wrong. This is because I don't believe it right to through politics or legislation qualify or quantify the value of a human life, such as is done in jurisdictions that allow capital punishment. While I'm against such "marco actions" on human life, I for some reason have less of a problem empathizing with the individual victims involved, which is to say, I don't think I'd rage against, say, a grieving mother avenging her murdered child by killing the murderer. But then again, not all individuals have the ability or the capacity to exact revenge and maybe they have to rely on their nation state for some kind of restitution? My opinion is probably logical mess, full of contradictions, but there it is. Feel free to poke holes, in a kind manner!
124 replies
I've already thought about all the names of specific leaders and billionaires I'd write down in that book, close it up and go to sleep with a smile on my face.
I mean if I had a magic gun that, when fired, put a bullet into the brain of every trump supporter, I'd empty the clip.
So... yeah, I'd use the death note.
plus on billionaires. hoarding ill-gotten capital while buying politicians to ensure you remain at the top is violence. Dismantling institutions for the poor, crafting an america with income inequality at it's worse since the great depression, 70,000 americans die every year due to lack of access to health care. That is violence, perpetrated against us all, by republicans, and by corporate capitalists. They let you rot and melingure in poverty, dying in shame for having nothing, that's akin to torture. A swift death via death note is almost too kind for them.
Killing is the morally correct thing to do in acts of self defense
Billionaires, just by hoarding the wealth that they have and using it to run this system, are an everyday threat to the lives of the most vulnerable people in society
They are above the law. Nothing will happen to them if I don't do something. That's who I would go for without hesitation
None of that ego bullshit, no Kira nonsense. Just do what has to be done in whatever accidental or coincidental method
I would use it. But I wouldn't use it against regular people who are in jail, they are serving their time for their actions.
I would use it against those who have the resources to avoid jail time.
Then I would use you to kill my business rivals by publicizing convincing but fabricated evidence against them and making it look like they boight their way out of consequences when courts rightly shot the case down.
(For what it's worth, I feel the same and would probably make the same call. Just for the philosophy of it, there are reasonable arguments against the stance.)
There are many people who contribute or cause people's deaths who should have their ability to cause harm removed from society, but who continue to roam free as a result of their disproportionate influence and the corruption of the system (which they often contribute to). Given the lack of alternate means, I would choose to remove them in the most expedient way possible while also minimizing the opportunity for recidivism. I view this as the most utilitarian approach to maximize life, liberty, or even general happiness.
I know of some powerful people I would want to write the name of. I’m not sure if it will end the wars and suffering they’ve caused, but I believe the world would be a better place without them.
I would absolutely use it. Billionaires, war criminals, fascists, they'd all be targets.
Once handed the death note, I'd give it a test run on a singular target, with very specific means of death. Just to make sure I'm not wasting my time.
Once it's confirmed as functional, I'd set a date roughly six months in advance. Then I'd hop on Tor and do fuck loads of research for about 5 months, setting the date of death for those billionaires, war criminals, fascists, all for the same day. I'd try to make sure it's a global thing, not just centered within "western" countries.
The world would go into a bit of a panick, as fuck loads of very powerful people would overnight be gone. The status quo of the world wouldn't change too much I wouldn't think, but the rich and powerful would have a wake up call. Some of them would be missed, some of them would have estates going to children. I wouldn't target minors, but adult children who retain that lovecraftian wealth would themselves become targets for round two.
Round two would be significantly harder to implement. The rich and powerful that slipped through the cracks in the first round would be taking big steps to hide their presence. The research to find these traitors of humanity would get significantly harder. But just as before I'd set a date about 6 months out, and do 5 months of adding names with the date.
I'd like to hope that the second round would be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and gets the currently rising tide of fascism to stop, wealth to become unwanted, etc. It will have hopefully established a pattern which makes those with the opportunity to become billionaires, war criminals, or prominent fascists to not go down that path.
Twice a year every year the process would continue, and every year it would get harder and harder to discover targets. But I think it would be the safest way for an individual to use the death note to move the world to the right track.
Why not add a clause that they donate their vast wealth and assets to public causes.
IIRC the means of death has to be something they would conceivable do, and in a very short time span of a few minutes.
So you can't have the targets say messages with information they didn't know, or have them take actions that would be too out of character, or long in duration.
And the process of having a billionaire give away all their wealth is a long process. At best it would take days, if not weeks for all their stocks, art, assets, money to be donated/sold/etc. It would get even worse with round two, because there would be far less willingness to take ownership of those wealth vehicles, knowing that there may be a risk of your own head being on the chopping block.
The closest would be having war criminals recant their actions, but that just takes up more space on the page, and more carpel tunnel.
While I obviously disagree with your views, your writing is THE BOMB. Please make this a short story or novel - preferably in gory naturalistic style - and post it!
Thank you, I appreciate it.
I've been toying with the idea ever since I watched the show. It is in effect, political fantasy masturbation.
But it is fun to jack off sometimes.
I could see myself making a short story on it. Definitely not a novel.
You might enjoy the comic The Day All Billionaires Died
why stop with bad people?
Gaia has spoken. Noice.
From a strict utilitarian perspective, it's easy to look at this as a trolley problem. I can easily think of a few monsters at the very top whose deaths would definitely save far more lives in exchange.
But the harder question I'd struggle with is, where to stop? I can start with the most obvious targets and feel no remorse, but how long do I keep going down the list for? What would really keep me up at night is wondering what's worse: using it too much or not using it enough?
Oh yes, I'd probably end up with carpal tunnel syndrome from using it too much. Politicians, billionaires, CEOs, celebrities and that guys that parks his huge ass truck in a way that the hood is intruding on the sidewalk.
Also I'd try to do it in funny ways while they are on live-TV when possible, like the priest that got hit by the falling cross.
to get rid of all the earths billionaires you'd only have to wrote about 3500 names
I think we can expand it to shave down some of the upper multi-millionaire population as well.
People often forget that the Death Note lets you control the person near their death. Have them release a list to the public of their trusted coconspirators.
Have them list their inheritors. Have them say their wealth is cursed and anyone who keeps even a cent will die.
Then write the names of everyone on the list for the next round unless they give up all their wealth.
I agree, full confessions livestreamed and recorded, then literal melting.
I usually go with:
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
-- Gandalf when asked about killing Gollum
yeah but he stays strangely silent on sauron.
Being a maia, Sauron cannot be killed, so Gandalf was categorically not talking about Sauron.
wait! so what happened after the ring was destroyed??? Is sauron still alive! Will he kill me for not capitilizing his name!!!
Very much so. In fact, I'm not even sure you're you anymore. Who's typing those words?
I'm guessing he lost his ability to take physical form ever again, but I'm unsure.
That thing would be full in like, a few hours
I'd make Thanos look like a pacifist.
If you asked me this years ago I would have said no. Today though it would seem like such an opportunity to mitigate the effects of climate change and pollution and greed.
Feel like I could just get away with killing people who are like clinically brain dead and can't be allowed to die due to religious or legal reasons.
I can barely be trusted with that, but I feel like that's a limit I could stick to and spend the rest of my time just making sure the book doesn't get into the wrong hands.
There's still moral implications to being an angel of death and it could go wrong really easily but it feels much less tricky than deciding some dude fits my personal criteria of evil and thus deserves death.
I have thought about if I had a Death Note and the one thing that I would be deeply fascinated by is if it could cause things like people suddenly having Song of Saya style meat vision. If it could do things like that, then I'd probably be a little sadistic by making a few billionaires become "cursed" as a warning from "God" to get rid of their greed by getting rid of their wealth. That's also presuming I would be also allowed to basically plant voices in their heads as well.
I'd write down every wealthy persons name I could find
Kill all the billionaires. No exceptions.
I'd simply write 1 entry:
I also read that comic.
The comic was pretty decent, a fun little fantasy. So is this one; Billionaires get a little hell as a treat before they go to actual* hell
No. I'm against death penalty and I extend that to also apply to the people I don't like.
I'm not even going to read the other responses but I'll make an educated guess that this is a minority view here.
I oppose the death penalty because once someone has been caught and sentenced by the justice system, killing them should not be necessary. If they're a violent threat, they can be safely imprisoned. Or if they're only dangerous because of the power they wield, strip them of that power.
But the real question being asked here is about the kinds of people who seem to be above the law and may never be brought to justice through any other means, and are continuing to do active harm for as long as they are free. I would prefer to imprison them or strip them of power nonviolently, but if that's not going to happen...
Just out of curiosity, do you believe self defense can warrant killing? And what's your take on social murder?
It can be justifiable in certain cases. Defending oneself, their family or even country can make it the lesser of two bads. It's still not good in any manner and the threat needs to be acute.
Why? Why is an immediate, obvious threat worse than a slower, veiled one? Assuming both are equally dangerous and inevitable.
We have non lethal ways to deal with the other cases, imprisonment being the obvious, better alternative.
We do not. The billionaires pillage and kill with impunity. Cops and ice kill and pillage with impunity. You're living in a fantasy if you think our system deals with the other cases. Look at the Epstein list.
Fixing problems by murdering the groups of people deemed responsible for them has been tried before, and the historical record is not kind to those who tried it. The results were mass atrocity, institutional collapse, and generations of damage rather than any durable solution.
Imprisonment, for all its flaws, at least keeps the process reversible and subject to evidence, appeals, and changing standards of proof. Treating death as the cleaner or more realistic option simply assumes that identifying, selecting, and eliminating “bad people” by the thousands can be done accurately and without creating new incentives for abuse. History suggests the opposite: once the standard becomes “we know who the bad ones are and can just remove them,” the definition of “bad” expands and the mechanisms for restraint disappear.
That is not a world anyone wants to live in.
That doesn't address the fact that there are no functioning mechanisms to implement justice against those who harm us by hoarding pillaging and staking from us to amass incomprehensibly vast wealth.
I have no idea what I would do, but I know it would destroy me, either from guilt due to inaction or guilt due to action.
killing the top 1% wealthiest would solve like 99% of issues
That's 1-in-100 people worldwide, likely including you.
EDIT: Disregard most all of this as I got my numbers mixed up. I no longer stand by the point I was trying to make.
If they make less than $450k USD annually, then they're not in the top 1% of just the US. In order to be part of the global top 1% then they'd need even more than that, likely quite a bit more.Not to make assumptions about someone I don't know but I'd put it at about 1% odds that they make that much.What kind of mathematically illiterate nonsense is that. You think to be in the global 1% takes MORE MONEY than being in the US 1%????
You understand that requires the global average wealth to be HIGHER than the US right?
Besides the top 1% of the 1% (billionaire class) are a lot more problematic than someone who makes 450k/yr.... That's just a good doctor in the west. Plus Forbes publishes a billionaire list.
Thought I had posted a response about it earlier, butit was a mental mixup I had made. I think my mistake came from thinking of the top US 1% as some 3.3 ish million slots on some hypothetical leaderboard then forgetting that when you introduce the rest of the global population the top 1% is going to expand to some 80 million slots instead of remaining the now more exclusive 3.3 million slots at the top.
I'm also not the guy who claimed that offing the entire top 1% would solve most problems. I'd also agree with what you're saying especially after seeing the global statistics in my comment's other reply. If memory serves, according to that link 1 person would need to make more than $68,300 USD annually (after taxes) to be in the top 1% which I'll also whole heatedly agree includes a lot of people who I think both earned that money fairly and are very positive net benefits to society.
I will say I think the intention of the 1% idea was the include more people than just billionaires as there are plenty of multi millionaires who are just as bad off as the billionaires but with less capital, but I also think a lot more thought should be put into any such hypothetical list rather than just looking at raw numbers for net worth, income, etc.
These were my numbers last time I took the test. Adding my wife's income, and my zero income, we're in the 8%. It take very little to land in the 1%.
You have it exactly backwards. Compare yourself against worldwide, as I said.
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i
I apparently forgot to reply to this earlier, but I got my numbers mixed up and that's where my misinterpretation came from.
I think my mistake came from thinking of the US top 1% as some 3.3 million ish slots on the list, then forgetting that by adding in the rest of the world wide population the number of slots for people who would qualify would expand out to some 80 million ish slots because that quantity is determined by a set percentage.
I played around with the numbers on that website and it seems like you need to make more than about $68,300 USD annually (after taxes) in order to be considered in the top 1% globally. I'll also agree that (based on my experience where I live) that's just a decent job and not a particularly good one. Because of that I would agree that this person's filter of the top 1% globally easily could include they them-self.
I think I get the idea that they were going for by trying to include more people than the usual "all billionaires" I've seen in these comments, but yeah the specific number they chose seems like it would include hundreds of millions of people who I think likely would still prove a net benefit to society.
I was making $70K when I first saw that site which is why I remembered being in the top 1%. Marrying a Filipino really opened my eyes. Their min wage (varies a bit by occupation and state) is about $12 a day.
I'm RICH BEYOCH! (Well, not now. Haven't had a decent job in 2 years, none now.)
I feel like I would kind of have to, the potential upside is just way too big
Yes.
However, in the long run the DeathNote would make me a corrupt PoS. I genuinely believe no one should have such power (DeathNote, Geass, Makima’s Control etc).
Like everyone else, I have lines that cannot be crossed.
I personally believe that if you intentionally kill another human or intentionally harm/violate a defenseless child, you have waived your human rights as a result.
I’m also going to echo what others are saying, that those who have been caught by a justice system and sentenced should be left alone and I would focus on murderers and child abusers who are still at large.
I’d do the eye deal so that I could take out bad drivers. Just have sheets and sheets of “___ pulls over safely, parks, and turns off the car, then has a heart attack.” with a mount so that I could fill in the names as I go.
Have at it
Those who have, through their direct involvement and obscene power, caused and continue to cause harm and/or death to countless others I would use it on. I.e., those who have already chosen to abandon their humanity without remorse. No “small fries” or, like others have said, those who are already handled by society’s systems.
I would, however, methodize for death by natural causes if possible rather than direct violence. Much harder to make a martyr of someone who died like Stalin ;)
Wihile I think that you're right to recognize that there is a risk of these people becoming martyrs, I think any real quantity of people would become quickly recognized as violence regardless of the method of death.
For instance, if you killed a dozen billionaires, and one of them was Elon Musk, all the Musk stans would probably go into conspiracy theory mode, and call it an assassination.
If you kill hundreds of billionaires, then you'll likely have nation states recognizing it as violence.
And I think that would the case regardless of the timing or means of deaths. A pattern would emerge eventually.
Buy a set of d10,000 dice. Make a long list of names, up to that amount. Roll a d10 to decide how many people's names you'll write that day, then roll the d10,000 to determine the names actually get written in the Death Note. The randomization will help mask patterns, and if you pick pricks across the globe it'd be even harder to spot.
I've definitely thought about how using dice to add randomness would be a good strategy, and I'd definitely use it if it were me.
But if you're doing 1d10 per day, that's going to add up quickly to the point where the quantity itself adds up to a pattern of "before the rich started dying" and "after the rich started dying". And that's what will lead to martyrdom.
You are after all talking about the deaths of 140-190ish public figures per month, every month. That will be noticed.
Eh. It's more to obfuscate any browsing pattern that might match your research to targets. If you front load most of it and randomize the actual order it's a lot harder to track.
Also, the range is 30-310 people per month, with a normal distribution centered on 170 per month
If I'm being completely honest, the first name I'd write would be mine.
No, not accidentally.
You're still loved and valid Miisha. Not that I'm feeling that much better myself, but it's ridiculously easier to be kind to people than to yourself. ❤️🔥🩷🩵🤍❤️🔥
PS: this sent me down a DEEP rabbit hole of research on whether it's possible to write your own name in a death note 🧐 no conclusion as of yet
The answer is yes:
https://deathnote.fandom.com/wiki/Rules_of_the_Death_Note/Manga_Chapter_Rules
(Chapter 5)
I did read that, but shortening their life is different than ending it, I figure.🤔
We love you Miisha, please stick around
I would 100% go mad with power. Fully convince myself that I knew what was best for humanity and try to sculpt the world through deletion.
Didn't a list of ICE agents just come out? How could one resist?
First I would rip out like 50 pages and give them to one of my closest friends to use as he sees fit. I trust him entirely.
Second I would write my own name in the deathnote, that I will die a peaceful death of natural causes at 100 years old. This will prevent anyone from writing my name in a deathnote since I don't know how many others could be out there, and once someone's name is written it cannot be written again.
But how would I use it? Tough question. You kill one dictator and an even worse one takes their place. There will always be wealthy people. Killing the top 1% just means there's new people who are considered the top 1%. It would have to be some type of behavioral conditioning. Where everyone in the world is aware of some kind of super natural killer, but they only kill those who cause consistent and deliberate harm to others. I guess kind of like what Light wanted to do. Except I'd ignore the police entirely. Some dude named "Lind L. Taylor" is talking shit about me on TV? Cool.
Light's biggest weakness was his ego. Too easily goaded into making mistakes. I'm fully aware I would be "giving up my humanity". But instead of thinking about myself as a "God" I'd treat myself more as a "steward". Someone doing out of some kind of obligation. I have the power to affect real change in the world, I'd be remissed if I didn't at least TRY to do something.
At least in the anime, you couldn't write in a time of death more than 26 days in advance
Dang i forgot about that. Must be time for another re-watch
I'd like to claim a moral high ground, but as someone who's seen Death Note (the anime, plus the Netflix adaptation), I'd probably be light Light and go after those who evaded justice.
So, a quick rundown on what a Death Note (mystical item) from Death Note (an anime) actually is. It's a divine object in the form of a notebook, and it has several rules, many of which are not invoked in the show. It can be used to kill in that a handgun can be used to kill: that is the point of it, but you can do other interesting things. The first rule is that whoever's name is written in the Death Note dies, and that you must be able to picture the person in your mind to avoid accidentally killing a person with the same name. So for example, if you're thinking of a certain paedophile president, you would have to be able to picture him in your mind as you wrote his name so the Death Note knows exactly who you mean. If you stop writing, they die of a heart attack in 60... seconds or minutes, I forget which. If you keep writing, the timer is held. Then, additional rules apply. You can choose the manner of death. You can set conditions. You can use it to force people to do things.
So here's basically what I'd set up: I'd list each person who was in the Epstein files who hadn't yet faced justice. I would compel them to hold a press conference or at least state on camera with verifiable proof that the confession is real and not coerced, and declare all the things they actually did do, to whom, and when. Then, I'd list the person or people responsible for prosecuting crimes in their jurisdiction, and compel them to put the person on trial. If the trial is tampered with in any way, a highly trained assassin comes for everyone who was bought, and the prosecutor and accused both die by self-inflicted wounds leaving behind a note saying the guilt was too much, and apologising to the women and children, as appropriate.
Then I burn the damn thing. They never say it can't be destroyed, but since it is a divine object, it probably just respawns somewhere else.
I genuinely don't know. My beliefs are pretty contradictory on this. Murder is wrong, unless it's self defence in which case it's still bad but better than being killed yourself. This is a pretty core tennant of my beliefs. However I genuinely believe that there are a number of people the world would be better off without. This includes the awful right wing leaders much of the world seems to be under currently and their backers namely every billionaire on the planet. It is potentially possible that with something like the death note I could convince myself that writing those names is self defence, or defence or the planet/ human race. I don't know if I could go through with it or if I'd be able to find someone with more flexible/ extreme views and hand it over to them. Or if I could use it, destroy or hide it and then turn myself in.
Self defense isn't murder.
You are technically correct, the best kind. I probably should phrase that as taking a life rather than murder.
No, you were quite clear. And I very much relate to your take.
i wont use that death note in the first place and i would likely burn it
https://youtu.be/kjrUOlK2714?is=A1Z1Yf7eUJ6NrAnI
I feel compelled to leave this here
The existence of the death note proves the existence of the afterlife, and as the one who found it I am clearly the predestined divine ruler of earth.
Using the death note causes ones soul to be irreparably marked and when you die your soul is obliterated (iirc the Shinigami eat it but it's been a while so idk specifics end result is obliteration)
My death note would be used as a tool of power. First to create the ultimate prisoner's dilemma. Simply write down the names of your accomplices, and they will be absolved of all crimes (go to heaven) while you will be given a title of nobility in the kingdom (might as well make your life worthwhile since you won't get the afterlife).
I would even allow the justice system to use it as punishment. Have criminals sentenced to obliteration use it on criminals sentenced to mere death.
Scientists of course would be given a copy. Since it kills the heart, what about pacemakers? There's a small delay in effect implying that it must travel at some speed, so does relatively matter and in principle could you outrun the effect? Can we draw power from soul obliteration? Can we draw power from the afterlife? Can we bridge into the afterlife and turn souls into power gems??? How does the paper know what language to use? Many tests to run, many sadistic villains with damned souls which I'll have to run them.
Also since it would inevitably be used on me in some way, or I would inevitably be forced or tricked into using it, I'll just have to die knowing the memory of tyranny will persist and make it into the afterlife.
::: spoiler Death Note spoilers Ryuk tells Light that anyone who uses the Death Note will not go to Heaven or Hell after they die. He's technically telling the truth, but...
The ending explicitly states that there is no Heaven or Hell. All humans become nothingness when they die. The Death Note user is simply no different in this regard. :::
The Buddhist idea of karma is that it is the accumulation of your cravings and choices over your lifetime(s) and isn't "you" per se. What we think of as our self ceases to exist at death, and our karma is the condition/cause for another birth. So in that view of rebirth you are defining the conditions for another life by your choices and actions, but that life isn't you. Sounds like karma could still apply in the Death Note universe.
Damn. Well that's why we have a science division, their job is to figure it out. We'll just have to use some made up religion to quell the masses until they've mastered death note theory...
Unexpected question to see on Lemmy but an interesting one.
I think I would do it. Especially for people who cause disturbance for good people, serial killers etc.
Yeah, a lot of awful people in positions of power would go. I hope I wouldn't use it for petty things like "parking in the bike lane".
Removing a lot of the forces keeping the capitalist dystopia in place might let something else grow.
Absolutely not.
I'm as capable as anyone of identifying some of the scumbags that are fucking the world over, but I'm certainly not going to fool myself into believing that I could fix everything by killing all the non-believers.
Your last sentence is a non-sequitur.
You have a small group of scumbags fucking the world over, but your conclusion is you can't kill all the non-believers.
I cannot kill all scumbags and therefore cannot guarantee that a worse one is not going to take their place. I of course realize that most people would then keep the killing going, yet that does not solve the original problem.
You know the starfish analogy? Guy walking along the beach crowded with dying starfish and hucking them back in one-by-one.. Someone tells him, "You can't save all these starfish." "No," they guy says, holding a starfish, "but I can save this one."
You're telling me, "I can't kill all the scumbags."
That aside, though, there might be a theory that doing a massive systemic change can yield a new system that is remarkably stable. For instance, in an ecosystem, if you lower a population of a dominant species, another species takes over, and that new arrangement can be stable over time. ,
Yes, it would be enormously useful in combination with a mass movement and organized worker party to implement socialism.
I would.
Yeah. But, the problem is I would have to literally look at the court room proceedings for actual guilty verdict except for Child Sexual Abuse Cases and Domestic Abuse Cases as well.
No. I know its probably a minority opinion, but killing people doesn't really solve anything. If anything, killing often makes things worse. Eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind type thing.
No, finding a death note would mean that there is an afterlife, and there's no point in spending eternity suffering, because even if you killed all the bad people alive right now, more would come along.
::: spoiler Death Note spoilers The ending explicitly states that there is no afterlife. All humans become nothingness when they die. :::
I'd say more would come along if you don't use the death note to effect long term change.
Bad people become bad people usually through lack of sufficient medical care, systemic pathways that give corrupting levels of power to individuals, or poverty.
Effect enough change that puts the world on the right track to solve these problems, and the amount of bad people down the line will decrease.
It would definitely be a self sacrifice with the whole purgatory thing.
No, you're conflating criminals with bad people. Not all criminals are bad, and not all bad people are criminals. A lot of those conditions you listed are actually caused by a small number of evil rich fucks leeching off everyone else.
That's what I was saying...
Evil rich fucks => systemic pathways that give corrupting levels of power to individuals
Certainly. Not because of grief though, revenge is not a good reason, but because many issues worldwide would be fixed with targeted assassinations and it would avoid much bloodshed (since the other option is war, civil or otherwise). Also, imagine the fear the peers of those targeted would feel, they'd think it's God's doing or something, and that might stop them from pursuing their antihuman activities.
Ps: idk about killing those who did, how could I be sure that whoever is being problematic (idk, some MAGA dude with the book just murdering innocents because they're brown or Muslim or trans) would be the one I'd kill? A world with many Death Notes makes it all very confusing. But if I could 100% know this dude is the one just murdering innocents, I'd target him as well, ofc. If I can stop a crazy serial killer with the stroke of a pen, why wouldn't I do it?!
I thought God was pretty against murder.
I seem to recall that you think drinking a beer fully corrupts an individual, so seeing that murder isn't a problem for you it kinda confirms my theory that you're a troll.
Depending on the religion god has commanded quite a fuck load of murder.
I'm not talking about religion contradicting itself. That's obvious. I'm talking about this troll doing so. They claim to be super religious which means they are forbidden from murdering.
Fair enough
If I take a hit on Netanyahu or a random mass murdering maniac, what would the problem be? Do you think they'd be convinced to stop with pretty words? Do you think having the capacity to empower the victims to fight back against their oppressors (which is not the premise of the post even) wouldn't just create more unnecessary deaths? Or do you think passively accepting the status quo when you actually have the power to make things better is somehow the righteous option? 🤔
Think for two seconds, remembering that God is the Wise, and tell me in earnest that passivity in a world of horrors is what God would want, especially if you were given supernatural powers!
It's not me you have to convince, it's the God you pretend to believe in.
I'm not trying to convince you, I'm explaining things to you, lol. And, much like at least a quarter of the world, I'm not pretending, you just don't have the capacity to understand belief in God... God willing that'll change, though.
I know the basic facts about your religion. It's pretty clear that murder is forbidden. You love to distract from inconvenient truths, but it never works. You just admitted you'd wholeheartedly commit the cardinal sin of sins. So, cool?
You are careful to quantify "human life". Do you believe that human life is more valuable than other life? If so, why?
Of course it is. We are humans and we're doing the valuing. You'd be stupid to not value yourself above other life.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or if you are arguing that human life is more valuable because you are human and therefore more valuable than all other life.
Not sure if you're sarcastic or if you're actually arguing that human lives are not more valuable than other animals.
Not sarcastic. I do not think that human life is more valuable than other life. Will I prioritize my own life over others? Yes, because I am selfish that way. Given the choice, will I choose a human life over the life of an animal? I honestly don't know.
Do you believe that human life is more valuable just because you are human and therfore believe that you are more valuable, or do you have other reasonings? What I am ultimately asking is, what do you think makes human life so special and superior to other life?
Than you're an insane person.
I mean, do you not see reality? It's quite obvious that we're quite special compared to other animals. For once, we have invented the whole civilisation thing ... I don't understand how this is even a question.
I know you're right but, if I was forced to write the names of 100 humans, or one of my cats? Get me a phone book.
Yeah I know what you mean. I'm talking baseline value with the benefit of the doubt here. There are definitely people that have forfeited that special status.
Since you begun the extremism by calling another commenter insane for their views, I will say it is an interesting view coming from somebody who is obviously hopelessly lost in the smell of their own farts.
Why does our ability to create a civilisation (which largely has only been to the benefit of our species compared to all others) makes the value of a human individual worth more compared to other living beings?
Your own explanation is hopelessly confused, since you are obviously trying to argue your self-admitted subjective opinion as objective fact.
We created civilization for ourselves. It was a selfish construct that many could argue has had a damaging impact on the world and other life on this planet. The only way I see that as evidence for human superiority over all other life is if you already believe that human life is superior, which gets us to a circular argument.
No, that is quite a narrow view to take.