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.
I’ve explained in a bunch of ways how murder can and does often have nuance based on who is murdered and why.
You appear to ignore those arguments and keep reverting to “murder always bad. Rape always bad, how are they different?” When the premise “murder always bad” you seem to hold as some universal truth isn’t true in a lot of circumstances, some of which I’ve outlined in other comments.
Sometimes murder makes the world a better place. Sometimes it effects positive change. Not usually, but sometimes. Sometimes murdering a murderer is the only way to stop them from murdering more. Sometimes the murderer is so powerful it is the only way to stop them. The trolley problem.
I’ve been doing nothing but try and shed light on the fact that murder, regardless of how its seen, never should be championed, but shouldn’t be hated though at the same time, to the point where we think murdering the murderer is justified therefore.
You’re the one trying to apply inapplicable ethical questions to it, in attempt to justify it. When I’m not arguing it’s justification, no amount of murder is just to any degree in my opinion. I’ve been arguing that your hate is no different from anyone others, including and especially, anyone your hate is intended for.
We shouldn’t be championing a murderer the way they’re championing a rapist.
This just just absolutist and naive. I know you think it’s the height of virtue to see the world in such simple terms, but it isn’t taking the world, or humanity, as it is. We are animals, no more no less, and unless we literally genetically modify ourselves, we will always have violence within us. Some will always attempt and succeed at using those tendencies to subjugate the many, and the many can do and have suffered generationally, having children who live just to suffer, until finally the many, left with no other recourse, answer in kind, causing change for the better or worse, but on the long arm of history the better.
Your way of thinking comes from conflating often beautiful, even meaningful fiction as applicable to grim reality that doesn’t exist in prose, and isn’t watched over by some ridiculous divine father figure. It’s appealing to Santa Claus in a world built on coercion and exploitation.
Someone who affected real positive change in a tangible sense once said “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Please consider reading Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction regarding this matter, specifically The Kingdom Of God Is Within you. You’re rebukes are the same he address in a more clearer and detailed way. I can’t tell you how niave it is of you to say the things your saying in its regard, when you’ve clearly never even considered it in its entirety for yourself.
India’s independence wasn’t gained through violence. Neither were the Jim Crow Law abolished via violence, not to mention the sacrifice of King Codrus that influenced Greek men throughout the centuries afterward: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus, and all the other examples I’m ignorant to, not to mention how obviously effective it is on a smaller level—arguments, the bully at school, the tailgater; you’re calling a universally renowned way of reacting to things you hate more maturely as naive, my friend.
Check this out, Tolstoy’s Personal, Social, and Divine Conceptions to life:
“The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare).
The whole history of the ancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view to life to the divine view of life.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherent the Earth.” - Jesus, Matt 5:5
Not the traditional Christianity; Revelation, Corinthians this or supernatural, spiritual that. One that consists of a more philosophical interpretation of The Gospels that’s hiding underneath all the dogma ever since Paul. One that emphasizes The Sermon On the Mount, debately, the most publicized point of his time spent suffering to teach the value of selflessness and virtue, thus, the most accurate in my opinion. Tolstoy learned ancient Greek and translated The Gospels himself as: The Gospel In Brief, if you’re interested. This translation I’ve found to be the best:
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.
I’ve explained in a bunch of ways how murder can and does often have nuance based on who is murdered and why.
You appear to ignore those arguments and keep reverting to “murder always bad. Rape always bad, how are they different?” When the premise “murder always bad” you seem to hold as some universal truth isn’t true in a lot of circumstances, some of which I’ve outlined in other comments.
Sometimes murder makes the world a better place. Sometimes it effects positive change. Not usually, but sometimes. Sometimes murdering a murderer is the only way to stop them from murdering more. Sometimes the murderer is so powerful it is the only way to stop them. The trolley problem.
I’ve been doing nothing but try and shed light on the fact that murder, regardless of how its seen, never should be championed, but shouldn’t be hated though at the same time, to the point where we think murdering the murderer is justified therefore.
You’re the one trying to apply inapplicable ethical questions to it, in attempt to justify it. When I’m not arguing it’s justification, no amount of murder is just to any degree in my opinion. I’ve been arguing that your hate is no different from anyone others, including and especially, anyone your hate is intended for.
We shouldn’t be championing a murderer the way they’re championing a rapist.
This just just absolutist and naive. I know you think it’s the height of virtue to see the world in such simple terms, but it isn’t taking the world, or humanity, as it is. We are animals, no more no less, and unless we literally genetically modify ourselves, we will always have violence within us. Some will always attempt and succeed at using those tendencies to subjugate the many, and the many can do and have suffered generationally, having children who live just to suffer, until finally the many, left with no other recourse, answer in kind, causing change for the better or worse, but on the long arm of history the better.
Your way of thinking comes from conflating often beautiful, even meaningful fiction as applicable to grim reality that doesn’t exist in prose, and isn’t watched over by some ridiculous divine father figure. It’s appealing to Santa Claus in a world built on coercion and exploitation.
Someone who affected real positive change in a tangible sense once said “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Please consider reading Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction regarding this matter, specifically The Kingdom Of God Is Within you. You’re rebukes are the same he address in a more clearer and detailed way. I can’t tell you how niave it is of you to say the things your saying in its regard, when you’ve clearly never even considered it in its entirety for yourself.
India’s independence wasn’t gained through violence. Neither were the Jim Crow Law abolished via violence, not to mention the sacrifice of King Codrus that influenced Greek men throughout the centuries afterward: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus, and all the other examples I’m ignorant to, not to mention how obviously effective it is on a smaller level—arguments, the bully at school, the tailgater; you’re calling a universally renowned way of reacting to things you hate more maturely as naive, my friend.
Check this out, Tolstoy’s Personal, Social, and Divine Conceptions to life:
“The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare). The whole history of the ancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view to life to the divine view of life.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherent the Earth.” - Jesus, Matt 5:5
Not the traditional Christianity; Revelation, Corinthians this or supernatural, spiritual that. One that consists of a more philosophical interpretation of The Gospels that’s hiding underneath all the dogma ever since Paul. One that emphasizes The Sermon On the Mount, debately, the most publicized point of his time spent suffering to teach the value of selflessness and virtue, thus, the most accurate in my opinion. Tolstoy learned ancient Greek and translated The Gospels himself as: The Gospel In Brief, if you’re interested. This translation I’ve found to be the best:
https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Brief-Harper-Perennial-Thought/dp/006199345X