Is that a bad trolley problem where you only tell us the consequence of one side of the decision, and then use that to tell us that even thinking about taking that decision is is bad?

Seems like a loaded question. You can't imagine govt policies that kill people but do not save anyone in return?

> You can't imagine govt policies that kill people but do not save anyone in return?

Maybe, but I certainly can't reduce my thinking about ideology to considering an example featuring comic villains.

I'd call that a "no", actually. Or just a bad faith argument.

I left it vague so people of both sides could relate to how it fits the other side's hypocrisy. But I suppose this also allows people who are looking for a fight to imagine that it fits their own hypocrisy and get defensive.