WatDabney
IMO, just as is the case with organic sentient life, I would think that they could only potentially be said to be in the right if the specific individual killed posed a direct and measurable threat and if death was the only way to counter that threat.
In any other case, causing the death of a sentient being is a greater wrong than whatever the purported justification might be.
This is why there's such a determined focus on crushing criticism entirely - because Israel's actions are literally indefensible.
Or maybe more accurately, the illusion of a two-party system.
Between the House and the Senate, there are currently 258 Democrats in Congress.
And 224 of them are fascist collaborators.
I presume yes.
Trump's US and Putin's Russia are natural ideological allies - both oligarchic and autocratic kleptocracies dominated by quasi-religious moralism and repression, militaristic imperialism and white supremacism and both warped and corrupted to the benefit of the wealthiest few.
Western Europe, with a greater (if still less than optimum) focus on egalitarianism, social welfare, equality of justice, international cooperation and respect for the law, is the natural ideological enemy of both.
So yes - I believe the long term goal is for a US/Russia alliance to go to war against and devastate western Europe, to destroy the EU and NATO and essentially bring Europe into the fold, to build a globe-encircling empire of corruption, oppression and malfeasance -a modern-day feudal system with the wealthy few (individuals and corporations) as the new nobility and the people - American, Russian and European alike - reduced to the status of serfs.
Huh.
What I get from this is that you're so determined to counter my "thesis" that you've stooped all the way to broadly hinting that I'm mentally ill, and I have to wonder why - what it is that compels you to respond to a broad statement about a nebulous group of people with a specific, demeaning and wholly unsupported broadside aimed at a single individual you don't even know.
No matter though - I stand by my "thesis" such as it is - extroverts are for all intents and purposes emotional vampires - and I not only don't think your objections are convincing - I don't even think they're particularly relevant.
The concept is that people in their day-to-day lives, and particularly when dealing with stressful situations, find themselves emotionally drained and have to "recharge."
The exact distinction between introverts and extroverts is that introverts "recharge" by being alone, while extroverts "recharge" by being around other people.
Or more precisely, introverts not only don't get their emotional energy from others but can't get it with others around, while extroverts not only do get their emotional energy from others but can't get it when they're alone.
And what that means is that introverts gain emotional energy by manufacturing and stockpiling it, while extroverts gain emotional energy by draining it from others.
Or more simply, that extroverts are vampires and introverts are their cattle.
Which is exactly what extroverts are, essentially by definition.
Sleight of hand.
It goes even beyond that.
Extroverts are for all intents and purposes vampires.
They aren't "rescuing" you. They're capturing you, so they can feed on you.
And I don't disagree.
Except that we don't.
??
ETA: I just realized where the likely confusion here is, and how it is that I should've been more clear.
The common notion behind the idea of artificial life killing humans is that humans collectively will be judged to pose a threat.
I don't believe that that can be morally justified, since it's really just bigotry - speciesism, I guess specifically. It's declaring the purported faults of some to be intrinsic to the species, such that each and all can be accused of sharing those faults and each and all can be equally justifiably hated, feared, punished or murdered.
And rather self-evidently, it's irrational and destructive bullshit, entirely regardless of which specific bigot is doing it or to whom.
That's why I made the distinction I made - IF a person poses a direct and measurable threat, then it can potentially be justified, but if a person merely happens to be of the same species as someone else who arguably poses a threat, it can not.