this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
29 points (73.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27391 readers
1280 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 0 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

lmfao, YES

I just love baseless confidence.

Let's be hearing them, then.

You won.

Lol!

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world 0 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

"You won.

Lol!"

Everyone who didn't vote got what they asked for. There were two options. If someone thinks there's better days ahead so be it, but what's coming up is part of that same decision. There is no one else to blame. If the pain is worth the long term benefit, then fine, but it was an active and informed choice. The bodies that result were deemed acceptable in service of a better 2028.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

There were two options.

Do tell... how does the meaning of the term democracy turn into an enforced choice between a mere "two options" inside your head? "Two options" that, let us not forget, share more similarities than differences and are inevitably designed to benefit the powerful elites that CURATED these choices FOR you?

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Everyone who didn't vote got what they asked for

the only thing they clearly wanted was no winner

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world -1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

That was not an option on the table. Again, if you think it'll lead to a better tomorrow so be it, but acknowledge the bodies paving the road.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

voting makes them responsible for the bodies.

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah... so does not... that's the whole damn trolley problem thing... there were clear and defined outcomes for not pulling the switch. May have been justifiable, not even debating that, but you still own the choice.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

the whole damn trolley problem thing

doesn't have an answer. it's a thought experiment to expose your personal ethics. deontologists never touch the switch.

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

deontologists still get splattered, even if it's the correct choice.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

but they have no responsibility for the circumstances.

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world -1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Didn't say they did. People die none the less. If that's acceptable that's fine, but call it what it is: An acceptable loss.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

it is immoral to flip the switch and murder someone. that doesn't make the situation acceptable

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world -1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I don't disagree, it doesn't change that you need to own the bodies as an acceptable loss.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

no, you don't need to accept it.

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world -1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

doesn't make much difference to the bodies

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

except that you're not locked in a booth, so there actually are things you can do besides pull a lever.

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I'm done with this, but no, there was not. I respect and acknowledge anyone choosing a protest, I really do. I'm a registered libertarian for gods sakes. There we two choices, one was going to win, the other wasn't. If the reason someone allowed people to die was because less people would die in the future so be it, when it came down to it, that was the only choice on the table. Would have loved if it was different, but it wasn't. You don't get to avoid the splatter.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

there are still things you can do to save the people endangered by both your vote and the people who voted for the other candidate

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world 0 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Endangered by my vote? I don't like the splatter I'm getting. In fact I hate it, but I do own it. I tried to get less of it to wipe off.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 20 hours ago

I thought you were done

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 20 hours ago

think of all the people who Kamala would have imprisoned, deported, or shipped the bombs to kill. go do something to save them.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

you can't be responsible for something you didn't cause. that's not how responsibility works.

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

There are differing opinions on that depending on which philosopher is at the switch. What doesn't change is they all have to watch the carnage.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

but some of them choose to become murderers

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

No, all of them did. Through action or inaction. So again, if it was in service of a better tomorrow so be it, but it is what it is.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

you can't murder through inaction, unless words don't mean anything.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 1 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

If the risk of death or bodily harm is great enough, ignoring it demonstrates a "depraved indifference" to human life and the resulting death is considered to have been committed with malice aforethought.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 21 hours ago

In United States law, depraved-heart murder, also known as depraved-indifference murder, is a type of murder where an individual acts with a "depraved indifference" to human life and where such acts result in a death, despite that individual not explicitly intending to kill. In a depraved-heart murder, defendants commit an act even though they know their act runs an unusually high risk of causing death or serious bodily harm to a person. If the risk of death or bodily harm is great enough, ignoring it demonstrates a "depraved indifference" to human life and the resulting death is considered to have been committed with malice aforethought.

why wouldn't you show the whole paragraph?

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t understand how can it be cherry-picking when it is a reply to a comment, which stated in it’s entirety

you can't murder through inaction, unless words don't mean anything.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

the full definition requires an act. you cherry picked one ambiguously worded section.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Summaries are by definition ambiguous. They’re quick overviews of a subject, not in-depth analysis. If I wanted to cherry pick like a troll, I wouldn’t have linked to a source, which itself has footnotes.

As far as US law is concerned, it is entirely possible to murder through inaction. That is my only point.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

that's not what your source says.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

We understand English differently. There’s no point in continuing this conversation.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 1 points 20 hours ago

Thanks. You too!

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 21 hours ago

It ["depraved heart" murder] is the form [of murder] that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues as is the express intent to kill itself. This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence... It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence... It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not.

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

Murder, maybe not, but "allow to die through in-action" sure can.