Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hit men aren't what you think

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 311 posts

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#41

Post by avalys »

itsanaccount wrote: post #30
nickff wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This phrase: "responsible for so many deaths" is doing a lot of work in your post. What is your theory of responsibility? Is it legal or ethical, and if it is the latter (as I would suspect), what framework and criteria is it evaluated under? The answer is easy for a serial killer (obviously responsible for willful murder), a little more difficult for a soldier in war (directly responsible, but perhaps defending them…

You know why I don't work for a trapping and pest control company? Because structurally they kill animals. They go around with tools of destruction and end the lives of animals. Its the function of their existence. Do you know why I don't work for a _for profit_ health insurance company, who's stated goals are explicitly to make profit by slicing out some amount of premiums that are not spent to provide healthcare in…

By this same logic, you are responsible for the death of every person who could have been saved by you donating all of your income beyond basic living expenses (your personal "profit", if you will) to pay for their medical care.

You monster! How many people could you have saved! Instead you spend your money on vacations, television, computer games, music, movies, coffee, whatever.

Oh, what's that you say? _You_ (who, I presume, do not directly save any lives yourself) are morally allowed to use the profit from your labor on unnecessary things for your own pleasure, but people who actually work in healthcare must not just dedicate all of their professional energy and effort to helping people and saving lives, but also must not take any profits from it either, is that right?

Healthcare can morally only be provided by charities?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#42

Post by giraffe_lady »

nickff wrote: post #34
itsanaccount wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know why I don't work for a trapping and pest control company? Because structurally they kill animals. They go around with tools of destruction and end the lives of animals. Its the function of their existence. Do you know why I don't work for a _for profit_ health insurance company, who's stated goals are explicitly to make profit by slicing out some amount of premiums that are not spent to provide healthcare in…

If your definition of responsibility is so broad, wouldn't every Head of Government for every country be deserving of assassination? Even more broadly, every police chief in every large city, along with all military officers, most mayors, governors, and premiers would also be 'natural targets'. This seems a bit drastic to me, is it your view?

This is my view for sure. Every one of those examples is responsible for more deaths than an above average serial killer, they just do it through some degree of abstraction and distance that for some reason means it doesn't count. I disagree, it still counts.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#43

Post by [deleted] »

itsanaccount wrote: post #30
nickff wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This phrase: "responsible for so many deaths" is doing a lot of work in your post. What is your theory of responsibility? Is it legal or ethical, and if it is the latter (as I would suspect), what framework and criteria is it evaluated under? The answer is easy for a serial killer (obviously responsible for willful murder), a little more difficult for a soldier in war (directly responsible, but perhaps defending them…

You know why I don't work for a trapping and pest control company? Because structurally they kill animals. They go around with tools of destruction and end the lives of animals. Its the function of their existence. Do you know why I don't work for a _for profit_ health insurance company, who's stated goals are explicitly to make profit by slicing out some amount of premiums that are not spent to provide healthcare in…

[deleted]

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#44

Post by blahyawnblah »

kube-system wrote: post #25
big-green-man wrote: post #4

This is an interview with someone presented as some type of expert that obviously is not an expert. 1) it is not hard to get a silencer. You can make one in under an hour with cheap parts from a hardware store and a drill. 2) the CEO was at a conference. It's not surprising that this person "knew he would be there", it's interesting that this interviewee stresses this point like it is some big one to be made. The CEO…

> 1) it is not hard to get a silencer. You can make one in under an hour with cheap parts from a hardware store and a drill. As you can to construct an entire gun, if you want a crude option. But this isn’t Japan. Obtaining a commercial silencer doesn’t require someone to smuggle them through international customs, just across state lines. They’re harder to get than a handgun, but not hard enough to get that a determ…

You have to wait at least 8 months (it varies) to get a suppressor when you buy one. You also have to submit passport photos, get finger printed by either the sheriff or police chief, and then wait. This is in addition to a regular NICS type check.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#46

Post by allturtles »

itsanaccount wrote: post #20

[flagged]

Even if we do accept that this executive was responsible for many deaths, you will need to find a law that lets you prosecute him or get one passed. There's a reason we don't just let people murder murderers, even if they have very good moral justification for it.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#47

Post by aijdosaijd »

itsanaccount wrote: post #30
nickff wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This phrase: "responsible for so many deaths" is doing a lot of work in your post. What is your theory of responsibility? Is it legal or ethical, and if it is the latter (as I would suspect), what framework and criteria is it evaluated under? The answer is easy for a serial killer (obviously responsible for willful murder), a little more difficult for a soldier in war (directly responsible, but perhaps defending them…

You know why I don't work for a trapping and pest control company? Because structurally they kill animals. They go around with tools of destruction and end the lives of animals. Its the function of their existence. Do you know why I don't work for a _for profit_ health insurance company, who's stated goals are explicitly to make profit by slicing out some amount of premiums that are not spent to provide healthcare in…

I could not agree more. Where does the buck stop? From what I can tell United has almost double the national average for denials. They do what they do for the almighty dollar. Padding shareholder pockets has a direct effect on peoples lives and definitely results in at least some deaths.

If the highest level of executive is not held responsible then who is? The regulation and law in the US is heavily influenced by these companies lust for money and power via lobbyists. They are effectively a cartel. Do people honestly think this dude lost a wink of sleep over all the people who suffered from their wanton greed? I think not. As barbaric as it seems, he got exactly what he deserved.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#48

Post by ryandrake »

itsanaccount wrote: post #30
nickff wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This phrase: "responsible for so many deaths" is doing a lot of work in your post. What is your theory of responsibility? Is it legal or ethical, and if it is the latter (as I would suspect), what framework and criteria is it evaluated under? The answer is easy for a serial killer (obviously responsible for willful murder), a little more difficult for a soldier in war (directly responsible, but perhaps defending them…

You know why I don't work for a trapping and pest control company? Because structurally they kill animals. They go around with tools of destruction and end the lives of animals. Its the function of their existence. Do you know why I don't work for a _for profit_ health insurance company, who's stated goals are explicitly to make profit by slicing out some amount of premiums that are not spent to provide healthcare in…

> Do CEOs run companies or don't they?

They both do and don't simultaneously. Schrödinger's Responsibility. When the company makes money or does something good, it's because of the CEO's leadership...they are responsible because they are in charge. When the company loses money or does evil/bad, then the CEO has nothing to do with it, and instead it's either the fault of government, lone wolf low-level employees, customers, external factors, "economic trends", anything but themselves

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#49

Post by zdragnar »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #37
nickff wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your definition of responsibility is so broad, wouldn't every Head of Government for every country be deserving of assassination? Even more broadly, every police chief in every large city, along with all military officers, most mayors, governors, and premiers would also be 'natural targets'. This seems a bit drastic to me, is it your view?

> If your definition of responsibility is so broad His/her definition seems to be narrower than yours — namely profit over lives.

I am unaware of any heads of government who are not offered salaries above a minimum wage. Further, having such connections gets you invited to the upper crust society events and networking connections.

Their direct role in the deaths of others is usually more concrete than that of any CEO.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#50

Post by someothherguyy »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #33
nirav72 wrote: post #7

The shooter used a rare weapon with an integrated suppressor (or "Silencer" as the article indicates). A British made station six 9. I wonder if that will be the focus of investigators, since its an highly unusual weapon.

> The shooter used a rare weapon with an integrated suppressor (or "Silencer" as the article indicates). A British made station six 9. Hilarious how bad this is. - No, it’s not the B&T. He racks it straight back, and releases to spring pressure. The Welrod/Six is twist and pull and push. It was a compact or subcompact, with either the wrong booster or no booster in a can - There is a puff of smoke per shot on the lef…

> It was a compact or subcompact, with either the wrong booster or no booster in a can

Isn't this speculating as well?

Post reply on HN