In WWII were we fighting to kill all the factory workers, bankers, and farmers who benefited from the Nazis while leaving the Nazis themselves alone or were we fighting the soldiers and politicians who created and protected the Nazi Dictatorship?
Luigi didn’t kill a politician who opposed socialized healthcare. Luigi didn’t reduce the number of private healthcare firms by one single bit, it’s only set to go up under the new administration.
So your point is that murder may have beneficial consequences, or it may not, correct? Because nobody here or ever in the history of man is arguing that murder always has positive consequences.
Yeah they totally shouldn’t have killed any nazis in World War Two. Only bad outcomes from that one.
In WWII were we fighting to kill all the factory workers, bankers, and farmers who benefited from the Nazis while leaving the Nazis themselves alone or were we fighting the soldiers and politicians who created and protected the Nazi Dictatorship?
Luigi didn’t kill a politician who opposed socialized healthcare. Luigi didn’t reduce the number of private healthcare firms by one single bit, it’s only set to go up under the new administration.
Even the Nazis went to trial.
You are rambling absolute nonsense.
I took your abso-fucking-lutely absurd analogy and ran with it. Skill issue on your part.
No, you’re trying to be an absolutist about something you cannot be an absolutist about and it’s making you sound like a moron.
I think I understand your confusion. The statement was never absolutist. It was:
Killing evil people CAN have [nothing but negative outcomes.]
It does NOT say:
Killing evil people WILL have [nothing but negative outcomes.]
To reiterate the statement for you, it says that a murder does not always yield any beneficial results. Does that help you?
So your point is that murder may have beneficial consequences, or it may not, correct? Because nobody here or ever in the history of man is arguing that murder always has positive consequences.