this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
27 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
993 readers
63 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
God damn. Your words are like feces laced with aspartame.
Too bad you waste your rhetorical skills on standing up for the damned. I suppose you'll enjoy hell along with the people you defend.
I'm not standing up for the damned. I'm standing up to overkill. Not sure how me describing precision of justice should earn my words the adjectives you give them, not to mention my denomination doesn't even adhere to regular notions of Hell.
So you stand up for people who worship mammon and you follow a false gospel? Either way you are headed for an eternity of sorrow and teeth gnashing.
You say that like you aren't, by definition, standing up for murderers. I am what one might call dual denomination ("denomination" one being "Aiken" which is the world's most LGBT-friendly "sect", the other being Australian aboriginal folk Christianity which often blends with LDS tradition in Australian form), and both traditions warn against dependence on violence and the value of diplomacy. I will say again I don't support the victim wholly, but that how things happened was excessive.
You are confusing "Murder" with "Killing." There is no commandment against killing in war. It is not "over kill" to use violence against the cult of mammon. It is not "Murder" to kill in class war.
You say they warn against the dependence on violence but that does not preclude its necessity. You are just a coward who would uphold the right of evil men to prosper by abusing the just instead of working to bring those men to justice. You are a lazy heretic who warps the teachings of justice to protect sinners rather than help the poor. You will surely be held to account for your apostasy in this life or the next.
That assumes class war is war in any way aside from name. In this particular instance, death was definitely a premature outcome. Nothing else was even tried.
This is just patently false. There have been numerous attempts at reform of the medical insurance industry and they have all been quashed. You must be quite ignorant to think that the vested interests of the rich have no effect on legislation and law. Frankly I find it pathetic and childish that you would try to say such obviously false things and expect that anyone would believe them. I think you have spent too long grooming gullible children online.
I'm not sure how you gathered that thought (the ongoing slander about me maybe, though I would hope nobody sees deflection towards that from a discussion about death is fair). I know that the killer didn't even try to not escalate things.
Consider for a moment where we are six months later: a new CEO who is more or less the same as the old one with the same limited powers, industrial rules that haven't changed because the system is more complicated than that, a dead CEO whose death sent a shockwave in his family and sphere of influence, and a killer who A) is either afraid to show himself, or B) was afraid and got caught after fleeing only to become a prison cult following, with his own health system not having changed because he never tried doing something like suing and was never insured with the CEO's insurance to begin with (among other red flags that prop up).