Skip to main content
Worldbuilding

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • $\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$
    – Monty Wild ♦
    Commented Nov 25, 2022 at 12:14
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I'd argue that it's not accepted, but rather tolerated as a side effect of something they would prefer to keep. And the perpetrators don't get to simply walk away scot-free either. There are situations where killing is legal (e.g. self-defense) but there are many more which carry great penalties. As described by OP, the situation definitely falls under "carries great penalties". $\endgroup$
    – Aubreal
    Commented Nov 25, 2022 at 19:15
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Emphasis on the word strangers. Nobody is going to accept their own number coming up in some psychopath's random killing lottery. I argue that the more of a stranger the person who was killed is to you, the easier it is to tolerate the fact that they were killed, because it's easier to convince yourself that it won't be you (or indirectly affect you) next time it happens. This is called optimisim bias and explains why people believe they won't be the victim of a random crime. $\endgroup$
    – Wyck
    Commented Nov 26, 2022 at 5:34
  • $\begingroup$ "Rules that enable individuals to kill many strangers for no particular reason." That is clearly income tax. It is obvious. $\endgroup$
    – Boba Fit
    Commented Nov 30, 2022 at 22:44