LogFAQs > #891175824

Here's a moral question that we can hopefully keep as a civil debate:

Who is worse, one who kills with or without prejudice? This isn't about justifying any atrocities, just so we're clear. Let's not go down that road. It's a very complex question, in the sense that is somebody who impulsively kills anyone (almost at random) ethically more horrible than the one who focuses resources actively eliminating a particular group while putting another on a pedestal?... My position is that it's relative. If you're part of "the chosen team", the latter is probably less problematic. If you're not, the former certainly would be.

Take Mao Zedong or Josef Stalin, for instance: anyone and everyone was on their radar as a potential target and they had no remorse with regards to starving any of their own people, working them to death, or throwing them at the enemy, unarmed, until the opposing force ran out of bullets. They had no functional strategies beyond what amounted killing their own people. Without prejudice...

On the other side of things, you have Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein, who, if you were the right type of human, really had nothing to fear as long as you didn't choose to be disruptive to their agendas. With prejudice...
---

"message parlor" ? do you mean the post office ? - SlayerX888