So you’re saying you’re pro vigilantes and pro death penalty without court order?
Besides, that CEO didn’t kill anyone personally. One could argue you killed a few kids yourself by buying cheap electronics and clothing. If you now start just killing people that you think deserve dying because of some moral standard you think you have, you’re a fucking lunatic without any moral standard.
Osama bin Laden also didn’t kill anybody personally on 9/11, and the attack killed only 2,977 victims, which is almost certainly a lower body count than UnitedHealthcare under Brian Thompson’s leadership. Yet the US military personnel who violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and murdered him are heroes?
Can you explain why only victims of the likes of Thompson should fear, but the CEOs don’t need to fear even though they profit from rejecting life- or health-saving treatments?
So, Hitler wasn’t bad. Stalin was OK, didn’t kill anyone right?
But their decisions did. Their position of power allowed them to.
Just cause they didn’t murder directly doesn’t mean they played a fair game. They knew exactly what they were doing. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes goes for bad people too.
The CEO is however a robber baron operating at the times of peace, using different methods but achieving the same end - people dying, most often miserably. I don’t see how that’s better.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s so radical not grieving after a person who is the head of a corporation of which sole purpose is to take money from people for a promise of payout when things go dire, and then refusing when the times comes, leaving them exposed at the most miserable time of their entire lives…
Insurance companies are not banks, they don’t take deposits and return them to you with huge margin when you need it most. They would be operating at massive loss for each client.
Right, but still a person who had a part in making the lives of lots of people miserable or unnecessarily short.
If a CEO isn’t responsible for the policies of the company they’re CEO of, why would you need a CEO in the first place?
He didn’t kill personally, he just gave orders to other people to kill people.
Which means his killer didn’t kill anyone personally either, he just pressed some trigger and the gun did everything else
how many has that CEO killed?
So you’re saying you’re pro vigilantes and pro death penalty without court order?
Besides, that CEO didn’t kill anyone personally. One could argue you killed a few kids yourself by buying cheap electronics and clothing. If you now start just killing people that you think deserve dying because of some moral standard you think you have, you’re a fucking lunatic without any moral standard.
Osama bin Laden also didn’t kill anybody personally on 9/11, and the attack killed only 2,977 victims, which is almost certainly a lower body count than UnitedHealthcare under Brian Thompson’s leadership. Yet the US military personnel who violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and murdered him are heroes?
What odd moral standards!
Manson didn’t kill anyone directly. Doesn’t mean he was not innocent of murder
He only died in prison cuz he didn’t wear a tie and go to board meetings
Can you explain why only victims of the likes of Thompson should fear, but the CEOs don’t need to fear even though they profit from rejecting life- or health-saving treatments?
So, Hitler wasn’t bad. Stalin was OK, didn’t kill anyone right?
But their decisions did. Their position of power allowed them to.
Just cause they didn’t murder directly doesn’t mean they played a fair game. They knew exactly what they were doing. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes goes for bad people too.
Hitler killed Hitler. Pretty good score.
^(It’s fucking sarcasm, of course.)
Honestly that fact was known to me, but I just realized he was the good guy/hero we needed after what he did…
The CEO is not a violent dictator commiting war crimes
The CEO is however a robber baron operating at the times of peace, using different methods but achieving the same end - people dying, most often miserably. I don’t see how that’s better.
This is why I get tired of Lemmy. Constant extreme views with little rational thought
I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s so radical not grieving after a person who is the head of a corporation of which sole purpose is to take money from people for a promise of payout when things go dire, and then refusing when the times comes, leaving them exposed at the most miserable time of their entire lives…
Insurance companies are not banks, they don’t take deposits and return them to you with huge margin when you need it most. They would be operating at massive loss for each client.
You don’t have to grieve but think you should to sensitive to fellow humans no matter if they run a company that ruins your life.
That would be too radical for me, sorry
Right, but still a person who had a part in making the lives of lots of people miserable or unnecessarily short.
If a CEO isn’t responsible for the policies of the company they’re CEO of, why would you need a CEO in the first place?
He didn’t kill personally, he just gave orders to other people to kill people.
Which means his killer didn’t kill anyone personally either, he just pressed some trigger and the gun did everything else