Hacker News Reader

Their responsibility there is highly objectionable. This week, they collaborated to talk a different confused and lost young man out of pursuing transsexualism, saving his life in the spiritual sense and, very likely, the physical also.

So they're even, at worst.

View on HN

Once someone is dead, it's hard to call anything "even".

You can balance a corpse with a corpse on the scale of justice, but that would just leave two families ruined.

It's also hard to say that you've "killed" someone if you had zero physical involvement in somebody's death. But I guess words are very flexible these days.

If you take out a hit on someone you have zero physical involvement. If you order troops into a certain death situation you have zero physical involvement. If you drive someone to suicide you have zero physical involvement.. Where did you get the notion you need to be pulling the trigger to be morally responsible for someone's death? I call that killing.

If you ordered a hit, you ordered a hit. Why don't you just say that?

> Where did you get the notion you need to be pulling the trigger to be morally responsible for someone's death?

"Where" is a weird question since I didn't get that notion in the first place. But "being morally responsible for somebody's death" is a vastly more nebulous notion than homicide.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com