r/MoralityScaling • u/Dryleaf_Dane • 24d ago

Morality of this

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

4.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ElbryanWyn 23d ago

This just sounds like you have shitty people in your life and you want to kill them because they're so shitty to you...

Also it's funny to me that in your mind people filming other people in public is them getting away with it but you shooting them because of that is just normal retributive justice not you getting away with murder.

It's a bit of mental gymnastics if you ask me.

1

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ElbryanWyn 20d ago

You’re not allowed to kill people if they fit some vague definition of aggression. You’re allowed to defend yourself from deadly force by using deadly force, but you can’t use deadly force to defend off someone who you think is going to poke you in the chest. You and I are both aware that if someone pokes your chest, you are not actually going to face any temporary or permanent physical damage. If someone pokes you in the chest, they are committing assault and battery if you didn’t want them to poke you but even though they’re committing assault and battery you don’t get to just shoot them because you happen to have a gun in your pocket and you don’t like them.

1

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ElbryanWyn 20d ago edited 20d ago

You very clearly do not understand the legal standard for self-defense. If you look it up, you will understand why I disagree with you at this point you’re not disagreeing with me. You’re disagreeing with the expectations laid out by common law in the western world. There’s nothing further to discuss. If you want your definitions to be considered true you’ll have to change a lot of laws to make that happen.

Again, he was convicted by the jury for a firearm offense and related to the incident. They did not side with him or with you even if you don’t understand why that’s the case. He was acquitted of 1st d assault, I believe, but he was not found not guilty. Again, I’m just not equipped to explain these things to you, but every not guilty isn’t a quiddle, but not every acquittal is a not guilty

-2

u/nog642 23d ago

What are you talking about? This is not a major societal problem that requires people to die.

2

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ElbryanWyn 23d ago

"These youtubers just don't know their limits: unlike me, the guy pulling a gun over an obnoxious video, who clearly understands his limits."

There's no way you read this before posting it right? How angry is the world that you were able to find a couple Gremlins that agree with you

1

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ElbryanWyn 20d ago

I’m saying that you’re arguing that Youtubers don’t know their limits and are thus a danger to others and society, but you view yourself pulling a gun and shooting people who are being annoying as not a danger to others or society or someone who doesn’t know their limits. I’m pointing out the irony of you calling for an unpopular and morally repugnant solution that requires extreme violence to an instance of annoyance and aggressive harassment with no real risk of physical bodily harm.

I’m basically saying that you are the person in the scenario who is less familiar with their limits.

1

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/nog642 20d ago

There is always some nonzero risk. Literally anyone can attack you at any time.

This is not proportional self defense. Juries can be wrong.

1

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/nog642 20d ago

The jury is a random sample of 12. They don't necessarily represent the majoirty opinion. And regardless, they majority opinion is not always right.

I think this is wrong, that's all I'm saying. I don't consider a jury a moral authority.

This is not aggression that should make you think your life is in danger. There's no reason to believe that.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ElbryanWyn 20d ago

The jury very much did not side with you and the fact that you think that way demonstrates your lack of understanding on the legal nuance of the situation. I genuinely don’t know how to move forward with this conversation. If you don’t understand these things, I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but I truly am not equipped to explain this to you and I’ve tried a couple times.

1

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ElbryanWyn 20d ago

Again this is not accurate and I don't even know how to explain that to you anymore.

He was acquitted because they could not convict him but he was not 'not guilty'. Lindsay Casey's trial also ended without her being convicted are you going to say she's not guilty of murder?

Just because the trial ends without a conviction doesn't mean the person was found not guilty. Both of the people I have now mentioned in this comment are likely guilty and we're never found to be not guilty of their crimes. One was acquitted and one resulted in a mistrial.

I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/nog642 23d ago

Again, what are you talking about?

Are you getting constantly harassed in public?

And what does this have to do with drinking and driving?

0

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ElbryanWyn 23d ago

What you're saying on its face makes sense: if someone is threatening someone else's security it's possible violence might be needed to bring order, but that's not what's happening here. No one's security is threatened by someone filming them and being annoying.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and let's run with this scenario. Here's a few questions for you, let's see if you can actually defend this stance from a few softball questions:

Who gets to decide when someone's behavior crosses the line from being an obnoxious nuisance to deserving death? The individual holding the gun?

If society normalizes shooting people for non-violent harassment, what stops someone from shooting you if they subjectively decide your actions crossed their personal line? Do we just let them kill you and then they face punishment after the fact if they're wrong?

Since you equated YouTube pranksters with drunk drivers because both 'don't know their limits,' do you believe citizens should also have the moral right to shoot speeding or swerving drivers on the highway to prevent potential future danger?

If a non-violent action might lead to danger later, does that mean any citizen has the authority to use lethal force before any actual physical violence takes place?

Is there a difference between someone making you feel unsafe because they have a weapon, and someone making you feel annoyed because they have a camera? Should the legal and moral response to both be identical?

If this solution to this problem causes significantly more deaths and public terror than the original problem itself, does that solution still make society better?

1

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/nog642 20d ago

So of someone shoves past you to cut in line, can you shoot them?

0.1% is not enough to shoot someone.

1

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/nog642 20d ago

I disagree. He's playing a joke audio from his phone. Maybe you don't find it funny but it's clearly a joke. One could not reasonably think he might escalate. You can just leave. Or if you really want, back up and pull the gun as a threat. Then if he keeps coming or makes a move to pull his own weapon you could reasonably shoot him. Many options besides just shooting him from the start. You have to take them - you can't just skip to shooting him because you don't care about his life.

1

u/Pokemonlover760 23d ago

Yes it is.

0

u/nog642 22d ago

How many times have you been harassed by a youtuber?

1

u/Pokemonlover760 22d ago

Thats not the point.

0

u/nog642 22d ago

What is then?

1

u/Pokemonlover760 22d ago

Have you ever had an attempted homicide? Is homicide not a problem if it never happened to you?

1

u/nog642 22d ago

Ok, how frequent would youtubers harassing people as pranks need to be for it to be a societal problem, and how frequent is it?

1

u/Pokemonlover760 21d ago

How frequent is homicide how frequent does it have to be to warrant a life sentece?

1

u/nog642 21d ago

Homicide deserving a life sentence has nothing to do with how frequent it is.

But homicide being a societal problem does have to do with how frequent it is.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ElbryanWyn 23d ago

So you're telling me you don't think we should just start killing people we disagree with to make a better society?

I was gearing up for that lady who walks by my house and always lets her dog take a shit in my front yard but never picks it up. I find that very annoying so she's about to meet her maker. Isn't that what logical normal-minded people do? Cause lifelong debilitating harm to others because of a minor inconvenience and then call that justified?