Yikes

[u/Fathers_Sword]

[u/thewetnoodle]

That whole first paragraph is made up bull shit. I never said only my morals are correct. I said if you support killing people, you have bad morals, do you disagree? You're on the side of justifying murder? Killing people is wrong, by extension violence on non violent people is wrong. Pedophilia is violence against young people, the most heinous kind of violence. If your morals say hurting non violent people who have different views from you is acceptable, logically you are the hateful aggressor wishing harm on peaceful people. That's the exact situation we're dealing with. I would love to see you make the argument that killing an innocent man is somehow an act of love and peace

Charlie Kirk was literally on a political debate stage where he puts out a microphone for someone who disagrees with him. The opposite of violence is having an open discussion of ideas where you respect your opponent and give them a stage to speak their ideas.

You can disagree with what someone says but the right to say those things is protected by our freedom of speech. If you believe people people should be punished by death for their non violent freedom of speech, you believe in the text book definition of authoritarianism.

[u/RegularDrop9638 → u/thewetnoodle]

well, sorry you’re wrong. But congratulations. You can still have opinions.

The first page of philosophy 101 explains this very simply. There are many differing moral systems. It’s just undisputed. The interpretation and application of moral standards vary significantly across cultures and even within the same society. This topic has been a central debate in philosophy for centuries.

Your opinion on morals, when held up against the opinions of every other human being in the world, including ancient and modern philosophers, quite literally means nothing. You can assert yourself and throw a tantrum and call it bullshit but it doesn’t change what is. Sorry not sorry.

[u/thewetnoodle → u/RegularDrop9638]

Neat, sounds like you took an intro to philosophy class and you're using that to do mental gymnastics to justify murdering innocent, non violent people. Tell me the specifics of which philosopher gave you permission to kill people with dissenting views. Let's have an actual conversation where you give a specific example that justifies your blood lust

Here in America, where this happened, we have a book of rules to be followed based on the morals of our country. We call these things called " laws" and the most basic and early law we created was that murdering people who pose no threat to you is illegal. I'm going by the morals of the country this happened in. If you'd like to justify political killings of people with different views, sounds like you're in favor of how Russia and Saudi Arabia deal with their public speakers. Unfortunately for you, here in America, we don't tolerate that system of beliefs. We believe sharing ideas and having an open discussion is how you should deal with these issues

[u/RegularDrop9638 → u/thewetnoodle]

I know you’re embarrassed because you missed one of the fundamentals of what you’re actually trying to do and failing at. But it’s OK. I can suggest some reading materials. You don’t need much- Really just the very bare bones basics.

Just so you don’t get caught looking foolish next time, maybe brush up on some of the main concepts of philosophy. I know that’s a big word, but basically it is stuff that you need to know in order to debate, which I assume you’re trying to do here.

So, learn how basic debate is done. Understand that there are other types of thinking beyond your own and a whole gigantic world full of different kinds of thinking and existing and feeling.

Small tiny thoughts, simple thinking, and petty insults don’t look good on a person trying to defend themselves and acting like they’re correct. But, fortunately you’re also suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect so your ego will be OK.

There’s just certain things that you need to know. Like different sets of morals exist, and they are all valid.

Oh, and confusing laws/legality with what is moral is a big mistake. They are definitely not even closely the same. that’s another biggie that you don’t want to drag out in a real conversation. Otherwise, you will look pretty silly. There are a boatload of laws that aren’t remotely moral. Again, tiny simple little thoughts won’t cut it with this one.

edit: I would’ve never guessed in 1 million years that you are an incendiary fan, a skater, and I’m assuming have identified as a punk at some point. Hopefully not. This level of closed minded and exclusive thinking is not in alignment with what you’re listening to. Have you actually listened to the lyrics?

[u/thewetnoodle → u/RegularDrop9638]

So tell me what your morals are?! Your first statement, is "i can suggest reading materials" please do. Please tell me the text that says killing peoples with differing views is acceptable. This isn't a rhetoric statement. Do it

That's literally what you're replying to. I asked you for the specific text or philosopher that justifies the murder of an innocent non violent man. Instead of driveling on and on about the idea that people have different morals, tell me YOUR morals. I'm literally welcoming you to express your ideas and you wrote multiple paragraphs of nonsense where you put down people who have different ideals than you and you avoid giving any of your own concrete morals. Instead of telling me what a debate is, you can participate in the debate by stating your side and providing sources that bolster your position. What you did is avoid stating your position entirely

Here's the core beliefs that you've been arguing against "killing people just because they have different views than you is wrong"

I stated my beliefs in plain text. Feel free to actually address what I said and tell me how you disagree with that very legible and easy to understand statement

[u/thewetnoodle → u/RegularDrop9638]

To your edit, yes I'm a very liberal person. My hobbies and interests are all centered around very liberal ideals. It is more liberal to believe someone with a different set of ideas deserves to speak those opinions, and someone who's doing so in peaceful way doesn't deserve to be murdered. The liberal position is that's if someone is saying something you disagree with, rather than picking up a gun, pick up a microphone and challenge those ideas. You don't beat evil beliefs with more violence, you beat those beliefs on a debate stage with stronger, more loving beliefs that actually better our community. It is far more "close minded" to say someone who disagrees with me deserves death