zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
People are wondering "How far does this go? How can Twitter say this is not cool, but allow something like violent movies or games? Where's the line?"

The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.

>>ikeyan+2B
> The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.

Is this supposed to be bad? I actually wish that our own PM had done the same. I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree.

It seems that the US citizens are fine with state mandated violence as long as it does not include them. Nothing happened regarding https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 for example.

>>depend+2L1
It is bad because the value of human life (even people you don't like) is infinitely greater than material goods. A looted store can be repared, restocked, rebuilt. A dead human stays dead forever and yields a mountain of grief around him. They are not comparable at all.

>>Valgri+hP1
> It is bad because the value of human life (even people you don't like) is infinitely greater than material goods

The human life of the people looting your property is more important than the well-being of you and your family who will be in debt after that, I see.

Regardless, this seems to be your personal value, something that I (and most people that I know) do not seem to share - even the US constitution and laws do not seem to share it, after all it is legal to shoot someone invading your home. I have no grief to give to someone who died while trying to invade my home and loot my property. They are dead due to their own choices.

> A looted store can be repared, restocked, rebuilt

For free? It can be a lifetime's worth for some. Are you willing to pay it out of your own pockets? If there were enough people willing to do so I would support your statement, but that does not seem to be the case.

>>depend+OR1
> The human life of the people looting your property is more important than the well-being of you and your family who will be in debt after that, I see.

Your argument here seems to be that human life is worth less that the value of looted goods. So, if someone looted a TV, you think their life holds less value than a TV?

I want to interpret your reply charitably, but I’m really struggling with this sentence.

The answer seems self evident: Yes. Obviously. Without a doubt of course a human life (even a life that is doing something like looting) is worth more than the value of what it’s carrying.

Should we stop someone looting things? Yes. Should we kill them just over the theft? No, of course not.

>>ncalla+BV1
> Your argument here seems to be that human life is worth less that the value of looted goods

I do not subscribe to the notion of universal value. I do think however that for someone the value of looted goods can be greater than the random person who looted them, surely you must also agree with this.

Anyway, looting has effects in the real world too, it is not only "oh no, I lost some value", it is "they looted my shop so my family might go hungry".

> Should we stop someone looting things? Yes. Should we kill them just over the theft? No, of course not.

If we have the option to stop them (along with the rest of the looters) without killing them then sure.