I agree that the healthcare system has become an evil terrible thing and drastic change is needed, but once we start justifying people getting gunned down in the street in broad daylight then it becomes open season for everyone to murder anyone they want if they feel they had a good enough reason to do so. I personally have no desire to see society regress back to the wild west.
It sets the precedent that you can gun someone down in cold blood and get away with it if they were “a really bad person”. That is practically a textbook example of a slippery slope
That is practically a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy.
FTFY: you missed the most important word in that sentence. You don’t seem to comprehend that “slippery slope” is a fallacy.
The general public is capable of evaluating circumstances on a case-by-case basis. That does not change just because Mangione is acquitted. We are perfectly capable of recognizing this case is a rare exception, and not a general rule. Previous rare exceptions have not resulted in rampant vigilantism; there is no reason to believe that this case would be different.
The aphorism you should be considering is “following a line of reasoning straight off a cliff”. We don’t have to do that. The first three words of the Constitution tell us we don’t actually have to apply a law if we really don’t want to.
What’s wrong with the title? Whether you agree with his motives or not he still murdered a guy, thus making him a “killer”
The terms, “innocent until proven guilty,” “trial by media,” and “jury biases” come to mind.
Could he sue them? I think that would be great.
Well considering he’s fighting the claims, until he’s convicted, it should only be alleged or suspected. This title implies guilt.
The description in the guide is slightly better, it uses the qualifier may have
There is no evidence that Luigi killed anyone. His trial hasn’t even started yet, but everyone’s assuming he did it.
Did he confess and we missed it?
The guy did the equivalent of taking down an active school shooter.
that is an assumption
Being a CEO at this point in history should be considered suicidal ideation.
This was an assisted suicide.
I agree that the healthcare system has become an evil terrible thing and drastic change is needed, but once we start justifying people getting gunned down in the street in broad daylight then it becomes open season for everyone to murder anyone they want if they feel they had a good enough reason to do so. I personally have no desire to see society regress back to the wild west.
Slippery slope fallacy. Acquitting Mangione sets no harmful precedence.
It sets the precedent that you can gun someone down in cold blood and get away with it if they were “a really bad person”. That is practically a textbook example of a slippery slope
FTFY: you missed the most important word in that sentence. You don’t seem to comprehend that “slippery slope” is a fallacy.
The general public is capable of evaluating circumstances on a case-by-case basis. That does not change just because Mangione is acquitted. We are perfectly capable of recognizing this case is a rare exception, and not a general rule. Previous rare exceptions have not resulted in rampant vigilantism; there is no reason to believe that this case would be different.
The aphorism you should be considering is “following a line of reasoning straight off a cliff”. We don’t have to do that. The first three words of the Constitution tell us we don’t actually have to apply a law if we really don’t want to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem