Is he right?

Is he right?

not if you kill more than one

But if you kill TWO killers you start making a change.
Thanks Batman, multiple homicide it is.

superman already killed zod that makes him a killer
so if he kills another why would that number change?

bu if only kill one killer that has killed hundreds and hundreds how many lives are saved

If you don't kill a killer the number of killers in the world remains the same

I'll be sure to tell that to all the Jokers victims.

He didn't say that, so yes.

That implies that being a killer is an intrinsically bad thing.

Justified homicide is a perfectly valid concept.

Well, if you don't kill the killer the numbers of killers remain the same too.

hes just loading the word killer with "wooo bad person" shit, which it isnt. taking someones life is perfectly adequate and even desirable in some circumstances.

only if you stop at 1, as soon as you get to the second there are less killers remaining

batman is a faggot that likes to play catch with other retards dressing as weirdos too. never killed them because wheres the fun then,

this doesn't make sense if you're already a killer or intend to kill again. Basically batman is anti-single homicide, which we can understand

That's actually pretty good.
Also cringe at the 15 year olds who are too retarded to understand the quote to show off their EPIC basic math skills like noone else would know

>look mom i know 1-1

Only good answer

yes however the number of murderers will decrease

go to bed ben

If you kill a killer they can't come back next time. Only so many cheeky villains you can write.

Imagine being this full of yourself you call whoever finds this cringeworthy fake quote what it is a 15 year old.

inb4 250+ replies and nobody ever mentions this /thread

>2 killers
>1 kills the other
>1 killer remaining

Nope. Not according to Earth math, at least.

Sounds like more Jew bullshit to keep the goyim from wiping them off the planet.

technically, but that is some very low i.q logic, semantic mumbo jumbo that lacks any nuance. Sounds like it was written by a nu-male

What would Bill Finger and the comic writers of the day have to say about this quote?

>killing a murderer is the moral equivalent to killing an innocent
Nu male philosophers

If you kill a killer then that killer can't kill innocent people and ruin lives of family and friends. No one will miss a killer.

All murderers are killers, but not all killers are murderers.

Whoever wrote this is a moron.

How come Batman never just paralysed repeat homicidal offenders? At least they'd be unable to do anything in life anymore without the compassion of others. He doesn't have to KILL anyone...

"if you defend yourself against somebody who violates the NAP, the number of NAP violators drops by one."
-Hoppe

> "If you eat a baguette sandwich from a store; someone else is the eating the other half of that sandwich."

Wise words Batman

None because they are already dead.

According to Marvel, the Punisher's bodycount is 2000+. Which makes him 1999+ efficient in reducing the count of killers.

Well, he kills people who look at drugs the wrong way so it's not really all killers but still, you get the idea.

If you flush a turd, the number of turds in the world remains the same.

>people still falling for this facebook picture

If someone is to blame it's the Arkham Asylum/Blackgate Prison/whatever prison for not being able to keep people in

No

btfo

but its okay to punch them, especially if their nazis!!

What if you kill another one?

>actually pretty good

lol, no

When taken as an absolute - and not a general rule or aim - that shit is only good in the eyes of either a naive utopian or an arrogant holier than thou douchebag who lets others do the dirty work in an imperfect world while reaping the benefits.

It's a good code for a vigilante in a comic book to make him distinct from the bad guys and tell a story about justice, but in reality when you try to stop people from doing bad things there always is the possibility of having to use deadly force, even if you don't want to.

This is on the level of BLM just listing all black people shot by police as proof of racist police violence, ignoring the vast differences between cases. Shootings that range from what amounts to straight up murders by cops, through incompetent policing towards someone innocent, through incompetent policing towards someone guilty of something but not an actual threat, through justifiable shootings, all the way through neccessary shootings to protect the lives of themselves and/or others.

YAAAAS

If you lack any vision, yes.

people who intentionally kill innocent people have a different moral status to innocent people so killing those who intentionally kill innocents is morally different from killing innocents.

so the number of killers remains the same if you kill one person who kills innocents but the number of people who have killed innocents goes down.

Killing =! Murdering