In the early 20th century, about 50 years before Norway discovered oil, they were already per capita among the richest countries in Europe. This was because of their culture of land and resource sharing.

Thanks for the reply. This is a genuinely tricky question, because most of us acknowledge that revenge under some circumstances isn’t just permissible but desirable, yet the devil is in the details. Consider revenge

1. For practical reasons such as a deterrent to future transgressors. Or
2. To ameliorate some tiny fraction of the hurt inflicted by the transgressor.

For instance, it would be devastating to lose a loved one, but it would hurt even more if those who killed her were out there enjoying themselves consequence free.

Well, you have my respect! I’m willing to have my mind changed. Why don’t you think we should kill evil people? I don’t get it.

Killing is a fast and easy solution… being able to look beyond killing is one of the few privileges our intelligence gives us

Sure.

We are all animals (some more than others). And we have learned the hard way that to instantiate more of the transcendental values that humans occasionally exhibit as rational creatures — to bring more courage, wisdom, and meaning into this world — we should preserve life whenever possible. But there’s nothing fundamentally sacred about life… We kill all the time. Literally non-stop. Billions of animals, just like us, sentient and desperate to live, butchered for your use and pleasure. So unless you’re a vegan, you do not get to discuss “the sanctity of life.” It’s gibberish.

From an ethical perspective, killing is often justifiable. We’ve been trained like monkeys in a cage to respond aversely to death, but that reaction is grounded in a social contract that is only conditionally valid.

Not quite. The reason we reject vigilantism is not that it is always unjust, but only usually. In this case, however, the outcome was in line with any reasonable objective standard of justice, as far as I can tell.

Fun fact, murder means “illegal killing,” not an immoral one. There are plenty of unethical but legal killings, and vice versa. So to clarify, murder isn’t always “bad” by definition.

Exactly. It’s hard to be sure whether someone is delusional or just a fascist.

You’re delusional. Or maybe a fascist. I’ve no idea.

Ironically, people in the Biden/Harris administration are the only ones “lifting a finger” to help your parents.

Our generation can’t retire. Why should boomers? Old people, who depredated this planet, should not have access to social security or any other safety nets, which they fought so hard to destroy.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

“Oh no, we wouldn’t want the psychopaths with the broken brains not to exist. That’s eugenics.”

You’re all fucking idiots.

Also, I love how no one gives a shit about the ecological apocalypse. This is why I kept telling you guys: let the hurricanes destroy everything. No more FEMA. Americans clearly don’t care.

For all practical purposes, about 30% of people are unfeeling morons - basically psychopaths. That’s the number that consistently opposes abortion, for instance. Add to that all the dumbasses who don’t know any better (the undecideds on any extremely obvious moral issue), et voila. That’s how you get slavery, nationalism, genocide, theocracy, you name it.

Unless people are willing to screen for psychopathy and remove it from the gene pool, the human species will keep fucking around until it finds out. Might be nuclear apocalypse or environmental collapse, but at this rate it’s inevitable.

She didn’t just “die.” She was tortured for 40 hours and then murdered by anti-abortion death cultists.