> A contract killer is also responding to market forces. Sometimes people are willing to pay for things we don't want to allow them, and we judge (and punish) the people who provide them.
I'm not taking a position on monstrosity, or lack there of, but the reasoning provided seems flawed.
The reasoning was provided in context.
It's reasonable to strip a murderer of their physical freedom - it's unreasonable for anyone to do it to you unless you are a murderer.
You would agree that your neighbors or even you are ordering regularly from Amazon, yes?
In other words, your neighbors or even you are explicitly condoning the processes adopted by Amazon, yes?
The reasoning was provided in that context.
If your neighbors are regularly engaging the services of a contract killer, I would perhaps, move.
Is your comment motivated by actual confusion, misguided rhetorical posturing, or trolling? If the first, I'm happy to walk you through the reasoning should camelite's comment prove insufficient.
I don’t think Amazon is doing anything comparable to “murder”, and it’s disappointing that HN discussions are turning into a Reddit like hive mind to downvote and censor discordant views.
RE: “Misguided rhetorical posturing“ and “trolling”.
You’re basically writing indirect personal attacks. If you really wanted to “walk me through the reasoning” you could have just posted that reasoning instead of what you actually wrote.
You are not being downvoted because of a discordant view. I bet most people who downvoted you agree, some of them strongly, that Amazon isn't doing anything as bad as murder.
You're being downvoted because you reacted strongly to something I didn't say.
> If you really wanted to “walk me through the reasoning” you could have just posted that reasoning instead of what you actually wrote.
In a sibling comment, camelite had already provided an explanation that seemed clear to me. My offer was in case confusion nonetheless persisted. Since that seems to be the case, I'll try again.
"Comparable" is a bit of a poor word. It's true that I was drawing a comparison, so in that sense I obviously think they can be compared. But I was not saying "the badness of these things are of similar magnitude." I was saying that the argument raised in defense of Bezos, where we might be undecided as to culpability, would seem to also apply in defense of someone whose culpability we are clear on. The implication being that the argument is weak. If I am correct in that, this doesn't tell us anything about Bezos except that we should use other arguments in deciding what we think of him, ignoring that particular one.
It's proof by contradiction. He's responding to somebody saying that Bezos is not a monster (because) he is just responding to market forces. But if you follow that logic, neither is a contract killer. But a contract killer is a monster. So, by contradiction, Bezos is not acquitted just because he is responding to market forces.
