They are giving Luigi the death penalty

[Something Funny]

50 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

My argument is maintaining a culture of strictness and seriousness.

How about starting with not having a joke of a president?

What would prevent the creep of laxity is if there wasn't a 5 year old kid in the president's office telling the president of the United States to shut his mouth.

You can't expect people to have respect for laws and government when the ruling elite is bending laws however they see fit. Most people feel like Elons and Trumps of this world could literally do anything they want and face zero consequences. How is it a surprise when they grab a gun as the last recourse left?

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Something Funny said:

How about starting with not having a joke of a president?

Of course.

But life must go on. You can't win every battle. We tried, people were foolish.

Edited Sunday at 10:36 PM by Leo Gura

[Something Funny]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Put your theory to the test. Does this assassination actually end up improving healthcare?

I doubt it.

I feel like it has brought more awareness to the issue than ever and people are more willing to do something about it than ever.

[Scholar]

9 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

If the legal system is too corrupt to hold them accountable then what other option is there?

The rich greedy CEO's need to face the consequences of their actions somehow, otherwise things will not change.

Assassinations are a desperate attempt for justice when the legal system fails.

The problem is that morality is subjective, and you don't understand what it would mean, on a systemic level, for civility to be replaced by personal-ethics vigilantism.

Do you eat meat? If so, why shouldn't a vegan poison your next meal, if you are basically a person who pays for murder and rape to occur? The CEO is bad, but what about you? How evil are you for living in a society of mass animal rape, torture and murder, but doing nothing about it? In fact, you gladly benefit from it, and when confronted about it, much like the CEO, you will find any excuse possible to dismiss the absurd, self-serving evil that you engage it.

You don't understand what it means to have a society that greenlights killing on the basis of morally progressive notions. Partly you don't understand this is because you are far more primitive and lacking in moral development than you assume. The only reason why you are so upset about this CEO, and not about any meat-eater that you walk across the street, is because it is trendy to talk about socialism on social meda. That is literally the only reason, you are basically a NPCs drone that has been brainwashed by a technology and the society around you.

 

Start using your mind to question yourself deeply, because in essence, you are no different than the CEO in your profound ignorance and moral depravity. You are willing to kill others, not realizing that you yourself are worthy to be killed if you were judged by your own moral standards in a way that was ethically consistent.

Edited Sunday at 10:39 PM by Scholar

[Inliytened1]

47 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No, I am talking about the nuances of the real legal system, rather than elementary school notions of law.

Crimes have variable impacts on the community, as you clearly see in this case where half the country is cheering Luigi on as a hero. This is not a normal murder.

I understand that I just think if the death penalty is going to exist then I don't think the judicial system should need to be picky and choosy about it depending on the message that needs to be sent. That in itself is kind of backwards which was what @PurpleTree was pointing out.  It should not be a weapon to be wielded by discretion.  Either it shouldn't be used at all or it should be used equally across the board.  Maybe I'm not being nuanced enough i just think the death penalty is something prior to it because it is about human life and Judges shouldn't be able to play God. 

 

Edited Sunday at 10:43 PM by Inliytened1

[The Crocodile]

5 hours ago, MarkKol said:

He killed somebody, they can't let him free under any circumstances, otherwise, our justice system is an incompetent mess.

They have the power to choose.

[Scholar]

9 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I understand that I just think if the death penalty is going to exist then I don't think the judicial system should need to be picky and choosy about it depending on the message that needs to be sent. That in itself is kind of backwards which was what @PurpleTree was pointing out.  It should not be a weapon to be wielded by discretion.  Either it shouldn't be used at all or it should be used equally across the board

 

The reason why Leo is going on these sociopath rants is because he wants to virtue signal how conscious he is, that he is able to go beyond common human morality to such a degree that he is willing to accept things like death if it serves the greater unity.

That's it. There is literally nothing more to it, he has done absolutely zero research on the efficacy of the death penality, of it's ethical implications, of it's costs. The reality is that a lot of Leo's statements are basically a function of narcissistic objects that he seeks to fullfill through this forum.

 

The problem with this is of course that Leo never has to face the consequences of his ignorance, given how comfortable he lives. He will never face the dread and terror, so he can easily dismiss all of it for the greater good. Such attitudes are fundamentally lower in consciousness, because they reject compassion.  Leo has zero sympathy for individuals who transgress his personal stances of what is best for society, not because he is somehow the ultimate utilitarian God-mind, but simply because he never did care, and he never will. Leo simply lacks empathy to a significant degree.

Edited Sunday at 10:48 PM by Scholar

[The Crocodile]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

It literally is more valuable.

A guy on the street does not create value for society. A CEO does.

You guys have forgotten something very basis: rich people ARE more valuable because they create more value, all else being equal.

Not all people are equally valuable. This is a liberal delusion. A CEO is able to get things done which ordinary people are not. Until you understand this, you will not understand how society works.

Note: do not come at me with arguments about how rich people can be corrupt. Of course they can and are. That is desides the point. Being corrupt and getting things done go hand in hand.

And no, not all murder is the same. Political assassination is a different level of murder.

The insurance company CEO killed way more people than Luigi did. So if murder = deserving of death that doesn't make Luigi a murderer it makes him an EXECUTIONER.

The fact of the matter is that the health insurance industry shouldn't even exist.

[Apparition of Jack]

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, but whatever the causes, the fact remains that CEOs are usually hardworking and have necessary skills which few others have. You can invoke inequality of opportunity, but you cannot claim that a CEO is equal to a guy flipping burgers at McDonalds. A CEO works harder than a guy flipping burgers at McDonalds. This is just the reality of business. A CEO is responsible for the jobs of thousands of people and the 401ks of millions of people. That is highly relevant because we are talking about collective survival.

People have innate value, Leo. Even a blind homeless man in a wheelchair. You can’t put a monetary value on human life.

[Inliytened1]

15 minutes ago, Scholar said:

The reason why Leo is going on these sociopath rants is because he wants to virtue signal how conscious he is, that he is able to go beyond common human morality to such a degree that he is willing to accept things like death if it serves the greater unity.

That's it. There is literally nothing more to it, he has done absolutely zero research on the efficacy of the death penality, of it's ethical implications, of it's costs. The reality is that a lot of Leo's statements are basically a function of narcissistic objects that he seeks to fullfill through this forum.

 

The problem with this is of course that Leo never has to face the consequences of his ignorance, given how comfortable he lives. He will never face the dread and terror, so he can easily dismiss all of it for the greater good. Such attitudes are fundamentally lower in consciousness, because they reject compassion.  Leo has zero sympathy for individuals who transgress his personal stances of what is best for society, not because he is somehow the ultimate utilitarian God-mind, but simply because he never did care, and he never will. Leo simply lacks empathy to a significant degree.

I don't know about all that...that's an awful lot of reading into a person.   But hey, you follow him closely from what I've seen, so you probably have a better read on him than I do.  But your point on going beyond human morality is an important one - and it's one that separates an advanced society from one that is stuck in its own selfishness.   But according to you he's not going beyond morality for the common unity he's doing it puff his own chest.  And I don't get that vibe - i just think he's voicing his opinion.   So let's watch the personal attacks whether accurate or not.  

Edited Sunday at 11:03 PM by Inliytened1

[Scholar]

3 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

The insurance company CEO killed way more people than Luigi did. So if murder = deserving of death that doesn't make Luigi a murderer it makes him an EXECUTIONER.

The fact of the matter is that the health insurance industry shouldn't even exist.

Yes, and I think meat eating is evil and genocidal. Does that mean meat eaters deserve death, because if I kill them, I save a thousand individuals from torture, rape and death?

Do I get to be the executioner in this case, or does that simply not fit into your self-serving notions of ethics?

[The Crocodile]

3 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Yes, and I think meat eating is evil and genocidal. Does that mean meat eaters deserve death, because if I kill them, I save a thousand individuals from torture, rape and death?

Do I get to be the executioner in this case, or does that simply not fit into your self-serving notions of ethics?

????

I was responding to Leo's idea that Luigi should be killed for an aura of seriousness and strictness.

If you wanted to do that it would morally make more sense to kill the CEO, who killed way more people.

Killing one meat eater wouldn't do anything to save animals. Killing the amount where it would, would obviously be immoral.

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

I don't know about all that...that's an awful lot of reading into a person.   But hey, you follow him closely from what I've seen, so you probably have a better read on him than I do.  But your point on going beyond human morality is an important one - and it's one that separates an advanced society from one that is stuck in its own selfishness.   But according to you he's not going beyond morality for the common unity he's doing it puff his own chest.  I don't get that vibe - i just think he's voicing his opinion.   So let's watch the personal attacks.  

There is no such thing as going beyond human morality, that's a profoundly silly notion. Every rule and "should" you will make up will be human morality.

You cannot reject your own nature this way, and any attempt of doing so will lead to deeply perverse and, ironically, unharmonious ways of living.

 

That's the problem with utilitarianism. The utiltiarian wants the best for the world, but he does not realize that, to implement his utilitarianism, it would destroy the very thing that makes humans strive for Good in the first place. By replacing the Good, the inner love and compassion, with an abstraction like utility, or "high consciousness", will remove each individual from their own nature, which is the nature which had motivated the utilitarianism in the first place.

By removing oneself from this nature, one makes it impossible to see reality for what it is, and makes it impossible to grow in relationship to it. That is basically the problem.

If you reject humanity, you reject reality.

 

Humanity in this sense means your own nature, your own Will. The more alienated you are from your true Will, the most havoc you will cause in this world.

 

And what I say is not a personal attack against Leo. While it might be hurtful, I am saying these things because I believe them to be accurate, and I believe that both he and the forum might extract value from them.

[Leo Gura]

I am not a utilitarian.

Just because I am not soft on murderers and assassins does not make me a heartless abstract utilitarian.

Consider that there ways to be conscious, compassionate, and also strict.

The liberal attitude is not the only way to be good. Liberals don't have a monopoly on goodness or rightness.

Edited Sunday at 11:13 PM by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

Just now, The Crocodile said:

????

I was responding to Leo's idea that Luigi should be killed for an aura of seriousness and strictness.

If you wanted to do that it would morally make more sense to kill the CEO, who killed way more people.

Killing one meat eater wouldn't do anything to save animals. Killing the amount where it would, would obviously be immoral.

I get the impression that you were arguing that he did do no wrong for what he did and that therefore he should go free. If this is not the case then my post is not as relevant.

 

And of course killing one meat eater will do a lot to save animals. Basic market principles necessitate this. However, in fact, killing one CEO will literally not change anything because they will just get instantly replaced by someone else. But again, it's only natural to get into justifing your evil, the same as the CEO would if he were to face judgement.

[Apparition of Jack]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not a utilitarian.

Just because I am not soft on murderers and assassins does not make me a heartless abstract utilitarian.

What do you call saying a CEO’s life is worth more than a homeless persons, if not financial utilitarianism? 

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

What do you call saying a CEO’s life is worth more than a homeless persons, if not financial utilitarianism? 

It's just how survival works.

This doesn't mean a CEO's life is worth more morally. But it is worth more in terms of survival, and survival function is very important to consider in matters of politics because it is predictive of how politics unfolds.

You can act like you are above survival, but you are not. And certainly politics is not.

My aim is not to be moral or good or whatever, it's simply to accurately predict how society functions. In order to do that I must understand that a CEO has more survival value than a drug addict. It's nothing personal.

Edited Sunday at 11:18 PM by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not a utilitarian.

While you are not a utilitarian, the tendencies we observe here are utilitarian. In the end your stance simply is "for the greater good", but that notion will be deeply subjective.

The problem is that you think your notion of the greater good is not subjective. That the "higher consciousness" thing to do is to believe that "seriousness and strictness" is the proper response. This is perverse in two ways: You are deluding yourself that your own, personal perception (which as far as I can see is significantly informed by your personality, not merely your level of consciousness) is an objective perception, while equally maintaining that in fact, you don't believe there is an objective perception.

Most of what you do is an attempted expression of your sense of higher consciousness. Something like the death penality is a serious thing, and trivially asserting it to be a good thing, and that it has no negative impact on the world, and somehow contributes to the "seriousness" of society, is a deeply unserious thing if one has not seriously thought about it.

 

It's basically using politics and morality as an expression of a spiritual ego.

Edited Sunday at 11:17 PM by Scholar

[The Crocodile]

@Scholar  It's 100% possible to go beyond human morality, and there will still be a force guiding or orienting action. You just don't know what you're talking about.

Killing one meat eater will not change the amount of cows slaughtered. The amount of meat they would buy in a day is a tiny portion of a cow that would be slaughtered anyway to feed many other people. And the same for the next day and the day after that.

Ironically "human morality" is an insufficient force to govern human action, since it's totally arbitrary and based on lower whims or intellectual notions, rather than a whole restructuring and creation of reality by a higher Principle. From human morality I could say you deserve to be butchered just because I'm mildly annoyed by you, and subjectively, it's totally sound and internally consistent. But the Divine Will, a force descending entirely upon the face of the earth has other plans for you, as for Luigi, who it could set free using the jurors / jury nullifiers as instruments of its self Will.

[Leo Gura]

@Scholar I am not claiming to be some sort of arbiter of ultimate good. My activity within the political domain is much more grounded: I seek to understand how these social systems actually work. Like a science, I try to predict how they behave and why they behave as they do.

Whether there is or isn't a death penalty is of little attachment for me. Both are workable systems.

You paint me out to be some kind of unreasonable political lunatic when my political positions have always been grounded and common sense.

Edited Sunday at 11:24 PM by Leo Gura