this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
845 points (97.3% liked)
Political Memes
5070 readers
2945 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My running theory is he is a moderate republican who, after January 6th, realized Trump is going to kill democracy. He donated shortly after, but with the recent uncertainty decided solve the problem with his own hands. Unfortunately, he made a rookie mistake and held his breath instead of breathing out before taking the shot, didn't properly sight in his scope, and / or just choked.
I'm not in anyway supporting any form of violence let alone an assassination attempt on a former president. This is not the way to conduct democracy, there are much better ways to address the current issues. I am merely trying to point out why he was so close but still missed his target as if it were a paper target not a living being who, regardless of transgressions, doesn't deserve to have their life taken from them.
Criticism is welcome and appreciated
Edit: Criticism is welcome and appreciated
Just a quick question on the topic of not wishing him dead. This is more a curiosity on my end in context of the legal death penalty.
Are you firmly against the idea of taking a life even if they are abhorrent. Or is the issue with the lawlessness of a public assassination?
Would it make a difference if someone gets a legal death penalty but then get murdered illegally.
Does it make it justice if the assassin was on paper technically legal and in line of that, what makes the death penalty objectively just?
Does “your” moral reasoning of murder always come down to individual cases and subjective gut feelings.
You dont have to answer all or any of these, someone else may give their opinion. But a philosophical one not a political one if possible.
My personal opinion used to be "those who are beyond change, those who are so cruel, vindictive, undeniably atrocious, evil, maniacal ect. should be put to death, removed from the world they clearly shouldn't be in". After many long discussions with my closest friend I have come to believe that death is too light a punishment. Those who truly deserve the harshest judgment should live a long life, in complete isolation, devoid of all pleasure, entertainment, contact, ect. Take away all that humans crave besides basic human needs, let them truly suffer for their crimes.
Obviously, every individual instance of any crime should be dealt with by a fair and balanced jury, judge, defense, and prosecution, with as much fact and evidence as can be attained without prejudice or predetermined judgment based on personal biases.
I'm obviously long winded but am super happy with the engagement on my comment. I don't like arguing but I love hearing others opinions! Thank you all!
That’s a rather fresh opinion with lack of better words. I cant say i agree but i am glad i asked, thanks.
Personally i feel conflicted about the morality of taking away freedoms. This is for both criminal and state.
Obviously some people have done crimes that destroyed any notion of mental freedom in their victims and it doesn't feel just to allow those people to operate, but i acknowledge we are tapping into the same wrong “take away another freedoms” Its no avadada-Kedavra or imperio + rape, but its still an imperials curse nonetheless.
What i eventually settled on is that we have no choice then remove the freedom of clearly dangerous individuals. With those that have a path to redemption, basic human flaws are often fixable so we should go all in on those.
But for those that crossed the impossible to draw proverbial red line that redemption is no longer possible.
Our only single concern with them is their removal to keep everyone else safe. Technically that means putting them on their own self sufficient luxury island would be adequate as an ethical solution, we adress the single concern with no further harm but its not a very sensible idea in our economic context and i wouldn’t support it (give me the island instead). A walled facility providing basic needs will do as the best we can honestly offer… we should do more for homeless, partly unrelated sorry.
The easiest, most efficient way to remove them permanently is of course death. But then we do lower ourselves to take away all freedoms, knowing we could succeed the main tasks more ethically, shouldn’t we?
I absolutely understand your perspective of punishment but personally i feel nothing for a person who cannot reach or interact with anyone getting punished. Punishment to me requires reason like eventually growth.
What i eventually settled on is permanent jail, naturally being provided with just the basics we can economically spare and then provide the freedom for the detained to chose for death. And i feel many in this situation, with no hope of shortening of sentence or pardon would chose to die.
Providing the most clean/efficient way to remove monster from society. In personal theory.
Factual Practice is this is an ugly gritty topic with no easy answers.