this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
835 points (97.8% liked)
World News
32363 readers
500 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He will probably kill 10-20 finback whales so we are not talking about very large numbers. Also it would not be good for Icelandic politics if someone would kill him, he could become somekind if whale killer martyr and Iceland would continue to kill whales after his death.
Well that's just as easily solved by more killing. There can't be more than like 20 people in the country that have a massive boner for murdering whales.
The killing will continue until morale improves
The rise of far right politicians and fascists is directly related to the dramatic drop in assassinations of political figures.
The solution? Start murdering fascist and far right politicians that exploit the working class and the environment to add to their already endless coffers. This is the only viable answer.
Change my mind.
Would it be more whales? Less?
There's a minimum whale population before genetic defects start having impact between mates..
I'm not advocating direct violence, but mixing sand into the hunting boat's engine oil and other more peaceful methods should be considered if the government won't listen to reason by its people.
let the whales decide his fate
Then you kill the next figurehead for whaling. Eventually, they'll get the point.
Whatw as that expression again.. "an eye for an eye... Is a really great idea"?
Killing evil people is a time-honored tradition.
One that seems to have fallen out of favor the last few decades with these ultra rich fascist assholes being more prominent all over the globe the last decade or two
Then who will kill the people who became evil by murdering?
Killing someone is not inherently evil.
See also tolerance paradox.
Unless you subscribe to any one of most of the worlds' belief systems. Or unless your parents did and some of it sort of rubbed off on you. Or if you think law and order is important. But outside of that, yeah, of course, killing is completely neutral moral gray area. /s
Virtually all legal systems make allowances for killing someone in self-defense.
And you could probably fill a library with all the written works on the ethics of killing.
But yeah, sure, let's just pretend that it's completely self-evident that killing is always wrong.
Who said it's morally neutral?
"killing isn't inherently wrong"
I don't care to argue anymore semantics. You get what I'm saying and I get you. I just think that killing feels wrong for good reason, and that's a very popular opinion. Stop acting like it's a silly one.
Killing is wrong in general, but can be justified by circumstances.
It is never neutral. Only ever unacceptable or justified.
E.g. killing billions by making the world uninhabitable is unacceptable, whereas smashing an oil execs face in with a baseball bat is obviously justified.
Then you would have no qualms explaining that to their 4 year old daughter who watched you do it.
Why would I force a child to watch violence? You're a very strange person.
It's justified
It's needlessly cruel
I'm sure we can find volunteers willing to kill themselves once they're done with the killing. 🤷♂️
Then someone should kill them for their stupidity. Cancer doesn't go away unless you cut it all out.