I can repost my at length response as to who is murdered and why matters, your response to it would indicate you don’t see the someone murdering an active murderer, or a member of a mass murder movement, as any different than any random murder of hatred or convenience.
Eva Braun apparently just didn’t love Adolf enough to mend his heart.
So who you rape matters? So if Trump raped what he considers as the worst of the world or someone he considers that deserves it and that it’s unquestionably justified for doing so, that makes it okay?
You’re the one that keeps conflating rape and murder for some reason. Every point I’ve made has been about how the reasons and subject of murder creates nuance. I think rape and murder are different discussions entirely. Rape is a purely hedonistic act, you can murder in self-defense, or to save others like by ending a war by cutting off the head.
People can and do murder for selfless reasons, knowing they will suffer or die as a result as a shield for those that stand behind them.
And again I ask you: what’s the difference between your reasoning that leads you to consider murder as justified, and the reasoning of even the very man you’re accusing? Even if it’s Hitler for God’s sake; by making the claim you’re stating that your justifications to what you consider as justified murder aren’t any different from if they came from Trumps reasoning. Murder is murder, even if it’s seen as something that’s being done for good. Because on the other side of things their convinced of the same thing.
I think your problem is believing you can defeat darkness with light, when the reality is that just gets light crucified and bathes all in perpetual darkness. The unfortunate truth is darkness, whether the fires of hatred or the bone chill of sociopathic greed, only responds to the force they’re so eager to dole out. Light, goodness, benevolence is by its nature amenable, and it is that very benevolence, that flexible, amenable, “can’t we compromise and both exist?” that malelevolence uses to gain dominion, and it never offers the same. Benevolence, when left with no other recourse, must choose to take up the tools so comfortable to malevolence, murder, or be extinguished ie go along which means you’re no longer benevolent, just another compliant subject of the malevolent, and thus complicit.
My problem isn’t thinking it can, it’s knowing it absolutely can, by it doing exactly that in very memorable moments of even recent history. Of course the more barbaric the more incapable of teaching it the error of its ways though love, that’s why it’s a knowledge that needs to be gained, taught, transfered throughout the centuries. By responding to the barbarian with yet more hate is to only poke at its instinctive need to retaliate, but to at least do nothing at all, and avoid it—using our knowledge to find ways around it. Is it the pets fault the pet peed in the house, or the only one of the two that’s even able to know any better? Selfishness, hate—doesn’t know any better, love does. Therefore it’s loves responsibility to respond to it the most reasonably, even if it’s at its own expense, because again it would be wrong to throw the blind man in contempt for making blind like mistakes. It literally doesn’t know they just walked into the wrong bathroom etc.
Just because something is to barbaric or “sociopathic” doesn’t make it impossible to respond to it without retaliation in some way, or irrelevant to do so, it just makes it an obstacle for those surrounding it that are presently lucky enough to know better to find a way around the problem so to speak, to cater to it even; to toss away what our barbaric instinct would demand of us in the moment and replace it with the logic and reason that a selfless state of mind brings otherwise.
Oh, Ok, I’m sorry, I inferred a higher level of query when I should have just taken it at face value.
RAPE: unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the person subjected to such penetration.
MURDER: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
I don’t think you’re catching on, lets try it like this: people championing a rapist, and people championing a murderer—what’s the difference? Either way both sides are championing a terrible thing, regardless of how justified either side convinces themselves that it’s not.
So who you rape matters? So if Trump raped what he considers as the worst of the world or someone he considers that deserves it and that it’s unquestionably justified for doing so, that makes it okay?
The conversation is about murder, not rape. The purpose of rape is to personally gain sexual satisfaction, or to hurt someone for the sake of it. That is not the case here, and it’s a false equivalency.
The original question was specifically: people championing a rapist (Trump), people championing a murderer (Luigi)—what’s the difference? Both are championing a great act of terrible violence, both sides just as convinced as the other of its justification; murder is murder, it doesn’t matter if it’s Hitler or yet another CEO to be replaced. Rape is rape, murder is murder, bad is bad—no matter the extent we take oaths to how justified it is for doing so.
From my point of view, it wasn’t. World War 2 was nothing but violence tumbleweeding into more and more. Who can say how many less lives would have been forced into losing if we would’ve been appealing to the people of Germany and the men that make up its army—that have been dooped by Hitlers propaganda for years regarding Jews. Nothing but incessant of the opposite of what the Nazi’s had to offer would have woken them up from all their “oath-taking” so to speak, to stop it from continuing as long as it did.
Congrats, you’ve justified a moral position that would have lead to nazis controlling the world, and exterminating countless more millions of people. What a great moral system you have.
It was literally just explained to you.
I tried to 🤷
You got more patience than I do, so props to you.
You didn’t though. If so, would you care to explain further? And make sure to answer the question directly this time.
I can repost my at length response as to who is murdered and why matters, your response to it would indicate you don’t see the someone murdering an active murderer, or a member of a mass murder movement, as any different than any random murder of hatred or convenience.
Eva Braun apparently just didn’t love Adolf enough to mend his heart.
So who you rape matters? So if Trump raped what he considers as the worst of the world or someone he considers that deserves it and that it’s unquestionably justified for doing so, that makes it okay?
You’re the one that keeps conflating rape and murder for some reason. Every point I’ve made has been about how the reasons and subject of murder creates nuance. I think rape and murder are different discussions entirely. Rape is a purely hedonistic act, you can murder in self-defense, or to save others like by ending a war by cutting off the head.
People can and do murder for selfless reasons, knowing they will suffer or die as a result as a shield for those that stand behind them.
And again I ask you: what’s the difference between your reasoning that leads you to consider murder as justified, and the reasoning of even the very man you’re accusing? Even if it’s Hitler for God’s sake; by making the claim you’re stating that your justifications to what you consider as justified murder aren’t any different from if they came from Trumps reasoning. Murder is murder, even if it’s seen as something that’s being done for good. Because on the other side of things their convinced of the same thing.
I think your problem is believing you can defeat darkness with light, when the reality is that just gets light crucified and bathes all in perpetual darkness. The unfortunate truth is darkness, whether the fires of hatred or the bone chill of sociopathic greed, only responds to the force they’re so eager to dole out. Light, goodness, benevolence is by its nature amenable, and it is that very benevolence, that flexible, amenable, “can’t we compromise and both exist?” that malelevolence uses to gain dominion, and it never offers the same. Benevolence, when left with no other recourse, must choose to take up the tools so comfortable to malevolence, murder, or be extinguished ie go along which means you’re no longer benevolent, just another compliant subject of the malevolent, and thus complicit.
My problem isn’t thinking it can, it’s knowing it absolutely can, by it doing exactly that in very memorable moments of even recent history. Of course the more barbaric the more incapable of teaching it the error of its ways though love, that’s why it’s a knowledge that needs to be gained, taught, transfered throughout the centuries. By responding to the barbarian with yet more hate is to only poke at its instinctive need to retaliate, but to at least do nothing at all, and avoid it—using our knowledge to find ways around it. Is it the pets fault the pet peed in the house, or the only one of the two that’s even able to know any better? Selfishness, hate—doesn’t know any better, love does. Therefore it’s loves responsibility to respond to it the most reasonably, even if it’s at its own expense, because again it would be wrong to throw the blind man in contempt for making blind like mistakes. It literally doesn’t know they just walked into the wrong bathroom etc.
Just because something is to barbaric or “sociopathic” doesn’t make it impossible to respond to it without retaliation in some way, or irrelevant to do so, it just makes it an obstacle for those surrounding it that are presently lucky enough to know better to find a way around the problem so to speak, to cater to it even; to toss away what our barbaric instinct would demand of us in the moment and replace it with the logic and reason that a selfless state of mind brings otherwise.
My original question was: Rape in trumps regard, and murder in this one—what’s the difference?
Oh, Ok, I’m sorry, I inferred a higher level of query when I should have just taken it at face value.
RAPE: unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the person subjected to such penetration.
MURDER: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
I don’t think you’re catching on, lets try it like this: people championing a rapist, and people championing a murderer—what’s the difference? Either way both sides are championing a terrible thing, regardless of how justified either side convinces themselves that it’s not.
No it wasn’t. If so, please kindly reply to me with it quoted so I can understand more clearly. Thank you.
So who you rape matters? So if Trump raped what he considers as the worst of the world or someone he considers that deserves it and that it’s unquestionably justified for doing so, that makes it okay?
The conversation is about murder, not rape. The purpose of rape is to personally gain sexual satisfaction, or to hurt someone for the sake of it. That is not the case here, and it’s a false equivalency.
The original question was specifically: people championing a rapist (Trump), people championing a murderer (Luigi)—what’s the difference? Both are championing a great act of terrible violence, both sides just as convinced as the other of its justification; murder is murder, it doesn’t matter if it’s Hitler or yet another CEO to be replaced. Rape is rape, murder is murder, bad is bad—no matter the extent we take oaths to how justified it is for doing so.
Was it morally acceptable for allied soldiers to kill nazis?
From my point of view, it wasn’t. World War 2 was nothing but violence tumbleweeding into more and more. Who can say how many less lives would have been forced into losing if we would’ve been appealing to the people of Germany and the men that make up its army—that have been dooped by Hitlers propaganda for years regarding Jews. Nothing but incessant of the opposite of what the Nazi’s had to offer would have woken them up from all their “oath-taking” so to speak, to stop it from continuing as long as it did.
Congrats, you’ve justified a moral position that would have lead to nazis controlling the world, and exterminating countless more millions of people. What a great moral system you have.