working hypothesis, who kills dictates societal norms

[cheka.]

toying around with big picture stuff...any comments appreciated

when good people kill more bad people = honorable, productive society

when bad people kill more good people = immoral shat-hole

snapshot of today - who kills? negroes, mexicans, skype controlled gov/military, skype controlled medical, skype controlled courts. good people kill a scant few....not even rounding error. has this ratio shifted over time?

when america was greater (or any country similar).....did the good people kill a higher percentage vs today's ratio? when good people kill in volume, does it discourage the bad actors (fear of retribution)? is this where we lost our mojo? if not, alternative explanation?

assuming this theory is legit....how correct the current malaise? issue warnings to bad killers first....then bring the hammer down if they continue?

[Glass]

If you kill lots of people, e.g. enough people so that you are the only one left talking, you say "You / I are good people". Therefore only good people kill people and they only kill bad people e.g. the people they killed.

That's how it works long term. It's usually called "history".

The great thing about "history" is that most people nod their heads in agreement even though it's only the "half story".



I've got C, TM and R on that one if no ones already done it.

[cheka.]

so you say that evil is in the eyes of the beholder? negroes killing old church ladies = militia taking out corrupt politicians that have killed thousand/millions of innocents

interesting take