That’s a very good point, but I am specifically addressing the “even if there was a better way” part, which strikes me as a little spiteful, at least.

I don’t think you should, but should we derive what is just from how much sympathy capital a given person has? Assuming your objective is to end poverty, etc, and to minimize suffering, then if you are ready to advocate for something like murder even in the hypothetical that you absolutely don’t need to, then you’re probably just letting your feeling dictate your actions. You can of course dispute that hypothetical, and there is definitely an argument to be made there, but a lot of people don’t and still go all in on it. Hence the problem with “wanting” these people to die, as opposed to “doing what is necessary”.

Then isn’t it revenge, and not justice? Not that I would feel bad for them, and I understand where the feeling is coming from, but in actuality, I wouldn’t ever dream of condoning something like that if there was any viable alternative. I thought we agreed the death penalty was bad, right?

I wish more people would understand this. If you remove the capitalists, capitalism will just make more. You need to remove capitalism, though obviously the capitalists will fight you on that and you may want to remove them from the system anyway. In either case, a lot of eat the rich discourse sounds like it’s out of spite and not in search of actual solutions.

A little on the nose… uhhh… I mean…

Well that’s uhh… something else, huh.