@41:48 One could be forgiven for thinking that Josh is making this argument against Brian Thompson, since he is accused of using tens of thousands of victims as instruments for his own benefit (skyrocketing stock price, $10m salary).
Authorities cannot allow anyone to operate outside their structures because it calls their power into question, so they will throw the book at this guy, regardless of any other circumstances. The fact that they allow the actions of the CEO and his company demonstrates they aren't too worried about death and pain.
I didn't really know much about that CEO who was murdered. When I heard about it my instant reaction was how utterly wrong it was. Nothing justifies that sort of action. Then when I saw the reaction on social media, glorifying this shooter for what he'd done, I was disgusted that people would react this way to cold-blooded murder. Now that I have been informed on exactly who this CEO was and what he was responsible for, my mind was changed (to my sincere surprise). I dare say justice was done in this case. This is a super-rare case where a powerful and untouchable person guilty of unforgivable cruelty was dealt real justice.
The problem becomes, where does it stop? If you "feel" that by killing a politician, you are preventing further deaths in foreign wars, is that justified? Additionally, how far down the chain do we go?? The assistant to the CEO? The secretary who filled out the forms? The person that build the AI algorithm that set up the denial claims? Where does it end?
@@smhdpt12 I agree. Also my opinion on the matter is that despite how much you dislike someone, the correct way forward is to lobby law makers. As soon as we condone what happened here the slippery slope argument doesn't sound too silly. Especially given today's political climate.
@@smhdpt12 I did not overlook the conundrum this presents. I was describing my honest reaction as it unfolded in real time. I feel there was no need to apply reductio ad absurdum to my deduction because this is clearly a case of action to 'where the buck stops' and no further. He was the guy who made the final decision and no tool or subordinate should be blamed. If we are going to argue at the extremes then we could probably both come up with individuals who would not be missed if they were taken out starting with a certain German dictator of the previous century. All said, of course I don't advocate for going down the path of vigilanteism. It is not appropriate for a modern society.
@@flain283 Further to my response to smhdpt12, I agree with your point but let's be perfectly honest here... We all know that those who control the levers of power in our society can easily bend things to their needs and almost always get away with murder. It is why too much of that kind of thing can lead to revolution and societal breakdown. It would be in their own interest not to exert their power so ruthlessly so as to create the climate for such a disaster to occur (as you point out; "given today's political climate").
The problem is there's a gap between our laws and our morals. Regarding the poll that was taken. I don't think acceptable or not acceptable to kill is the right question to ask. To me it's more of a matter of being a person who does not give someone else a reason to want to kill you. Think about it. Most of us would never kill and and most of us also don't give anyone a reason to kill us. We have good morals. It's the golden rule as an aspect in our social contract. Do unto others sort of thing. In a civilized society we're not supposed to kill, but in a civilized society we also shouldn't treat others so badly that people want to kill us. There's two parts in this arrangement. Health Insurance CEOs are in a unique position. No other CEO has direct impact on lives like they do. So if you are a duche bag health insurance CEO screwing over and pissing off thousands and thousands of people in matters involving well being and even life or death then don't be surprised if someone gets pissed off enough to want to kill you. People see what these health insurance CEOs are doing as immoral. As his manifesto says, these parasites simply had it coming. We should not have parasitic preditors who can impact harm and death for their company's profit, and their salary and bonuses, living in our society if we want a moral and civilized society. This is why the matrix media keeps focusing on Thompson being a husband and father. They are trying hard to disassociate him from his role as CEO for UHC who is ultimately responsible for the policies and operations which causes suffering for a huge number of people.
If the system is so corrupted that legal methods are ineffectual, what else is left.
@41:48 One could be forgiven for thinking that Josh is making this argument against Brian Thompson, since he is accused of using tens of thousands of victims as instruments for his own benefit (skyrocketing stock price, $10m salary).
Authorities cannot allow anyone to operate outside their structures because it calls their power into question, so they will throw the book at this guy, regardless of any other circumstances. The fact that they allow the actions of the CEO and his company demonstrates they aren't too worried about death and pain.
I didn't really know much about that CEO who was murdered. When I heard about it my instant reaction was how utterly wrong it was. Nothing justifies that sort of action. Then when I saw the reaction on social media, glorifying this shooter for what he'd done, I was disgusted that people would react this way to cold-blooded murder. Now that I have been informed on exactly who this CEO was and what he was responsible for, my mind was changed (to my sincere surprise). I dare say justice was done in this case. This is a super-rare case where a powerful and untouchable person guilty of unforgivable cruelty was dealt real justice.
The problem becomes, where does it stop? If you "feel" that by killing a politician, you are preventing further deaths in foreign wars, is that justified? Additionally, how far down the chain do we go?? The assistant to the CEO? The secretary who filled out the forms? The person that build the AI algorithm that set up the denial claims? Where does it end?
@@smhdpt12 I agree. Also my opinion on the matter is that despite how much you dislike someone, the correct way forward is to lobby law makers. As soon as we condone what happened here the slippery slope argument doesn't sound too silly. Especially given today's political climate.
@@smhdpt12 I did not overlook the conundrum this presents. I was describing my honest reaction as it unfolded in real time. I feel there was no need to apply reductio ad absurdum to my deduction because this is clearly a case of action to 'where the buck stops' and no further. He was the guy who made the final decision and no tool or subordinate should be blamed.
If we are going to argue at the extremes then we could probably both come up with individuals who would not be missed if they were taken out starting with a certain German dictator of the previous century.
All said, of course I don't advocate for going down the path of vigilanteism. It is not appropriate for a modern society.
@@flain283 Further to my response to smhdpt12, I agree with your point but let's be perfectly honest here... We all know that those who control the levers of power in our society can easily bend things to their needs and almost always get away with murder. It is why too much of that kind of thing can lead to revolution and societal breakdown. It would be in their own interest not to exert their power so ruthlessly so as to create the climate for such a disaster to occur (as you point out; "given today's political climate").
23:38
The problem is there's a gap between our laws and our morals. Regarding the poll that was taken. I don't think acceptable or not acceptable to kill is the right question to ask. To me it's more of a matter of being a person who does not give someone else a reason to want to kill you.
Think about it. Most of us would never kill and and most of us also don't give anyone a reason to kill us. We have good morals. It's the golden rule as an aspect in our social contract. Do unto others sort of thing. In a civilized society we're not supposed to kill, but in a civilized society we also shouldn't treat others so badly that people want to kill us. There's two parts in this arrangement.
Health Insurance CEOs are in a unique position. No other CEO has direct impact on lives like they do. So if you are a duche bag health insurance CEO screwing over and pissing off thousands and thousands of people in matters involving well being and even life or death then don't be surprised if someone gets pissed off enough to want to kill you. People see what these health insurance CEOs are doing as immoral.
As his manifesto says, these parasites simply had it coming. We should not have parasitic preditors who can impact harm and death for their company's profit, and their salary and bonuses, living in our society if we want a moral and civilized society.
This is why the matrix media keeps focusing on Thompson being a husband and father. They are trying hard to disassociate him from his role as CEO for UHC who is ultimately responsible for the policies and operations which causes suffering for a huge number of people.
This is a very biased conversation.
Terrible ethics because it would cause chaos if implemented broadly.
If what was implemented broadly?
@henryaudubon Addressing problems like bad insurance companies with murder.