Because you don’t have a crystal ball. You seem to think you can magically know for sure that premeditated murder of Fuentes would prevent suffering (“I support it if it does”.) Forget legality, morally you shouldn’t get to decide that someone dies because you “know” their death will prevent suffering. Like I said, what if other people decided whether to kill civilians based on that metric? Imagine if the “enemy within” extremist right start making decisions that way - they probably think you and people you want protected will harm their nation (and your willingness to seriously consider their murder wouldn’t help). Especially when it’s a podcaster, which again, is the origin of your argument as per your “silencing the voices” assertion that you’d somehow know when it would save “tens of millions”.
let’s assume Stalin’s regime wasn’t fascist. What changes?
You using him as an example of Western fascism.
Pick one.
That’s a moral decision, not a legal one. Like you say, policies can be determined by either. I think a person should get a trial where they can defend themselves and punishment can be administered equitably because of morality, not because it’s in a book. If I had to rule a country, I would design a system for trials if none existed, i.e. not because of existing law. I wouldn’t sign mob rule and vigilantism in law and then say it’s alright because I made it legal. We’re not going to agree. You think civilians murdering other civilians is not just a right but a moral obligation, I don’t.
Why I don’t support fascism: I’d support a war to unseat Hitler and the SS, but at that point it’s not murder, it’s combat. There would be moral boundaries in such an event. I would not support telling random people to march into a German newspaper and open fire on civilians in the hope they kill the right people to stop Hitler’s rise. Which is the WW2-era equivalent of killing Fuentes in his podcast studio as a check to Trump.
Now we’re getting somewhere! Why do you shoot the school shooter - you don’t have a crystal ball - they could drop the gun and surrender at any moment. How about Hitler?
You using (Stalin) as an example of Western fascism.
Cool - distinction without a difference - I’m glad we wasted our time on that when your dictionary agrees with me.
That’s a moral decision, not a legal one.
Great - let’s stop talking about legal stuff then.
You think civilians murdering other civilians is not just a right but a moral obligation, I don’t.
So you don’t agree with killing the school shooter? What if they have their gun pointed at you? Exception after exception.
it’s not murder, it’s combat
What’s the moral difference other than scale? State approval?
The difference between you and I is that I understand moral ambiguity and how to navigate it - you pretend things are absolute, set rigid rules then fall apart the moment you encounter anything that doesn’t neatly fit with your framework.
I would not support telling random people to (…) open fire on civilians
…aaaaand we’re back off what I’ve been saying - but this gets a lot more straightforward once we address the crystal ball piece.
Because you don’t have a crystal ball. You seem to think you can magically know for sure that premeditated murder of Fuentes would prevent suffering (“I support it if it does”.) Forget legality, morally you shouldn’t get to decide that someone dies because you “know” their death will prevent suffering. Like I said, what if other people decided whether to kill civilians based on that metric? Imagine if the “enemy within” extremist right start making decisions that way - they probably think you and people you want protected will harm their nation (and your willingness to seriously consider their murder wouldn’t help). Especially when it’s a podcaster, which again, is the origin of your argument as per your “silencing the voices” assertion that you’d somehow know when it would save “tens of millions”.
You using him as an example of Western fascism.
That’s a moral decision, not a legal one. Like you say, policies can be determined by either. I think a person should get a trial where they can defend themselves and punishment can be administered equitably because of morality, not because it’s in a book. If I had to rule a country, I would design a system for trials if none existed, i.e. not because of existing law. I wouldn’t sign mob rule and vigilantism in law and then say it’s alright because I made it legal. We’re not going to agree. You think civilians murdering other civilians is not just a right but a moral obligation, I don’t.
Why I don’t support fascism: I’d support a war to unseat Hitler and the SS, but at that point it’s not murder, it’s combat. There would be moral boundaries in such an event. I would not support telling random people to march into a German newspaper and open fire on civilians in the hope they kill the right people to stop Hitler’s rise. Which is the WW2-era equivalent of killing Fuentes in his podcast studio as a check to Trump.
Now we’re getting somewhere! Why do you shoot the school shooter - you don’t have a crystal ball - they could drop the gun and surrender at any moment. How about Hitler?
Cool - distinction without a difference - I’m glad we wasted our time on that when your dictionary agrees with me.
Great - let’s stop talking about legal stuff then.
So you don’t agree with killing the school shooter? What if they have their gun pointed at you? Exception after exception.
What’s the moral difference other than scale? State approval?
The difference between you and I is that I understand moral ambiguity and how to navigate it - you pretend things are absolute, set rigid rules then fall apart the moment you encounter anything that doesn’t neatly fit with your framework.
…aaaaand we’re back off what I’ve been saying - but this gets a lot more straightforward once we address the crystal ball piece.