this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
854 points (99.9% liked)
196
17471 readers
15 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not that hard to resolve. In an ideal situation, the fascists would drop dead without feeling anything. I agree that suffering is wrong, but death is natural and comes for everyone eventually.
Also, if you got hit with I gun that big I don't think there would be much time to suffer.
Perhaps I should clarify, actively causing death is what I struggle with. At what point does adding to death cause less deaths? How do we determine that? Even if we are able to somehow cause those deaths to be as painless and targetted as possible, it still causes suffering and inspires revenge from their family and friends. Under what circumstances do we justify it?
I haven't found an answer I'm satisfied with yet that doesn't somehow require clairvoyance.