If someone in a position of influence openly promotes spreading an epidemic disease that will injure nearly everyone and even kill some people horribly, in order to terrorize the population into behaving in a way that this infuential person believes is correct behavior, is it ethical to stalk and murder that bio-terrorist?Asking for a friend.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.70015As long as it isn't done openly, and no sense of coersion or threat to anyone else can be inferred from the act, it wouldn't qualify as a terroristic assassination, but rather just self-defense.No self-aggrandizing manifesto sent to the New York Times, no social media posts announcing reasons or motivations, just simply done and gone.Could that be considered the moral high ground, and therefore a murder that one is ethically obligated to perform?This is just a discussion of ethics, and in no way a promotion of unlawful behavior.
>>536163991>no sense of coersion or threat?>TO ANYONE ELSEThat's like saying it's fine for my doctor to give me AIDS because my neighbor will be unaffected.That's insane.
Will you get the tick vaccine, goy?You don't want to have to give up the yummy mcdonalds burgers, do you?
One must also ask about the people who published the article, thereby promoting it.Real talk though these fuckers need to be cancelled and their lives ruined, at the very least. Promoting the spread of disease is toxic and might well be against some law or other. Plenty of old morality laws on the books that don't get enforced.
>>536163991>bioethicsThese people are demented
>>536164183That's not what it's like.It removes the terrorristic angle, because you're not trying to strike fear into the hearts of anyone. It only solves the single-threat of the one terrorist.Is it self-defense, and is it justifiable?
>>536163991It is absolutely my opinion that whoever did come up with that shit does, in fact, deserve the worst. Probably wasn't that tough, tough. Opens a whole new moral quandry. Does google have the right to release bioengineered mosquitos in california and florida to fight diseases? That sounds great, but there WILL be 2nd, 3rd, Nth order consequences and, should the people who will be effected have a say? Are we not supposed to be a democracy or republic? Are we going to set the precedent that companies can just do what ever the fuck they feel like as long as they dress it up as "for the greater good?" If we allow this, it will almost instantly become the case that companies just go out and create seriously fucked up problems just to be able to sell the solution. This already happens but, we're venturing into a whole new level of this shit.
>>536163991I would burn them.
>>536164408It's neither, and I don't care at all if you call it terrorism or not, that's totally irrelevant.
>>536163991>WHEN IS ASSASSINATION ETHICAL?After about 6 beers. Same as when girls become Bi-Sexual.
>>536164330It may look like the publisher is promoting it to some, or it may look like they're exposing it to others. I feel it's a matter of perspective.
>>536163991You guys have a warped sense of morals. My morals are based on the "old" testament.While it says to respect foreigners and blah blah blah, it is a highly legalistic document.According to the legal doctrines it contains, genocide is legal (and praiseworthy) under certain circumstances.I intend to gain political power at some point and carry out several gsnocides as I believe in the concept that human biodiversity is beautiful.
>>536164563It is the very definition of "terrorism" and not some scare word I pulled out of my ass.
>>536164571Thank you, king of the keks.
>>536164762Good for you. It doesn't matter in the slightest.An crime not technically being terrorism doesn't in any way mean that it's ethical or justified.
>>536163991These people deserve to burn in hell forever.
>>536164658Nah if it were the latter they'd have a disclaimer before and after it, explaining that they do not agree with the article and condemn it.The bioethics journal needs to be castigated. I'm firing up my typewriter!
>>536164835But crime does become ethical in self-defense. Are you saying you would not shoot a crazed attacker bent on hacking you to pieces if it broke your city ordinace against discharging a firearm within city limits?Not trying to starw-man you; just exploring the stridency of your convictions.
>>536165186We're talking about submitting a paper to a journal.You must see that there's a fundamental difference between this and directly attempting to kill someone.
>>536163991>we argue that if eating meat is morally impermissibleoh so it's just some faggots crying about / in favor of veganismdon't care
>>536163991easy, when you dont get caught
>>536164669"Foreigners" here means other whites. Not the brown races still doing child sacrifices and performing cannibalism and ritualistic animal fucking.
>>536165355Honest question, and hand-to-God not trying to be a smartass: did you witness the COVID hoax as an adult? The assault on the whole world engineered by people who just published papers?
>>536165355What is the paper is a blueprint for a genocide they constructed and vocally approved of?
>>536165355>We're talking about submitting a paper to a journal.>You must see that there's a fundamental difference between this and directly attempting to kill someone.
>>536163991right now, just scream that you fear for your life when it happens.
>>536165579Yes.
>>536163991>If someone in a position of influence openly promotes spreading an epidemic disease that will injure nearly everyone and even kill some people horribly, in order to terrorize the population into behaving in a way that this infuential person believes is correct behavior, is it ethical to stalk and murder that bio-terrorist?
>>536165640Then it's little different from about a third of the threads on /pol/. But you're not going to seek out and murder /pol/tards, are you?
>>536165640Link is in the OP.Discussing how it would be ethically permissible to diliberately spread disease.
>>536165877Nobody's going to seek and kill anyone. We're just discussing the ethics of it.
>>536163991ethics go out the window. these are acts of war.https://www.bitchute.com/video/hvRoX959WIBH
>>536163991Obviously yes if persecution is otherwise improbable. Basically, why vigilantism exists and why monopolistic justice is BS. Preventure of harm is paramount along with exemplary of punishment for harm done after the fact.Anyone who states otherwise is okay with having pedos rape and murder children in mass because pedos control a monopolistic justice system for example.
>>536166017If you had any convictions then I might be worried that actually you or someone like you does plan on carrying out murders that you described as "ethically obligated to perform". But for whatever reason I'm not worried. It's just rhetoric.
>>536163991Homicide is not inherently immoral. Humans are objects like any other, and "bioethicists" would certainly be among the first to agree. If 1 in every 1000 sickly or otherwise morbid individuals of good moral character took someone out with them, this world would be a better place.
>the ONLY SYMPTOM is making an omnivore with heavy protein requirements allergic to one of the most plentiful sources of protein in modern society There's a humorous irony in academia. People within are questioning the wisdom of CREATING AN AI AND HAVING IT GO ROGUE! The thought of public funds being invested in an unnatural dictator who's completely divorced from human experience seems dangerous to them, because they lack the ability to look in a fucking mirror. >TransgenderismAcademics came up with it. >Open borders and outsourcing.Academics insist that they need access to these other talent markets and are fine with flooding out their oompaloompas with cheap labor to get to them.>Covid 19Seriously, what possible innovative value could a bug like that have outside of ending the world? They can question the morality of a hamburger, but not of making that fucking thing? They gave the Fuhrer they treat as their Satan a run for his money. The artificial intelligence has been here for much longer than Chat GPT, the attempt to manufacture geniuses from the privileged children of the elite, rather than elevate talent where it's found. The result is a class of corporatized pissants who will only ever ask other people to pay the price for their hubris.
>>536163991There are millions of targets, so pretty much any time.
>>536163991Yes it’s ethical. If you can do it you probably should
>>536163991i actually believe court would let someone off the hook for doing this if they can prove in court they did it because the person they killed was going to commit crimes against humanity.
>>536164448>Does google have the right to release bioengineered mosquitos
>>536163991It's not the Jew, it's the whiteys, fuck 'em, TOTAL WHITE GENOCIDE NOW!!!
>>536163991Someone should drop a box of ticks on the authors homes.
>>536163991
>>536163991In your fictional scenario the best courts of action is to hang their family in front of them publicly, then hang them. Men women and children.Make executioner a shameful job again.
>>536163991the problem is they are always surrounded by stupid goyim and the people who can do something are far away
