104
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 May 2026
104 points (100.0% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14378 readers
446 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah it honestly sounds vague and broad enough to be some kind of legal paradox
So if I'm in public and witness John attempting to kill Jane, I now have the legal right to kill John to defend Jane's life.. but attempting to do so means John now has the legal right to kill me to defend his own life? And let's say Jane has Stockholm Syndrome and is defensive of John, she would also have the right to kill me? Which would then mean John has the right to kill Jane to defend me?
even if none of that was happening, my defense for randomly blasting all three of you and everyone behind you is that I could claim you were all mutually willful destructing each other.
Come to think of it this technically means you should have the right to save someone on death row by killing the entire legal prosecution team, as well as anyone apart of the state execution team for administering lethal injection
two men walk into the street and shoot eachother in the head simultaneously. however, one of them jerked off today. which one should face the death penalty?
I think the point is that everyone ends up dead.