You obviously (deliberately?) are misrepresenting May's comment above. It isn't that some kinds of evil are "no big deal": It's that quantiatively, refusing to accept a solution that would prevent, say, 100 deaths, simply because it would cause _one_ DIFFERENT death is foolish and misguided.
If you feel inclined to deny this, consider the reverse situation: Would you approve of the saving of one life if it cost 100 lives? (all things being equal.) While most people would feel uncomfortable being asked to make decisions of this kind, that does not mean that one outcome is not identifiably better than another.
*I* am misrepresenting Timmy's statement? please explain to me how anonymous extortion and kidnapping/ransom (what Timmy was talking about) saves lives along the lines of the above reasoning...