That’s a lot of words to avoid acknowledging your own moral corruption for openly calling for people to be killed. Go troll someone else, you hateful, violent prick.
Your ability to admit you don’t understand it is a big step.
Now you just need to address your previous commenters in the same light, with the questions you’ve been asked and are too afraid to answer.
We believe in you, champ.
You’re literally in a thread about a guy cheering for the death of others and you’ve decided to troll the guy saying that killing is morally wrong. How can you say this shit with a straight face?
Saying that killing is morally wrong, or saying that an individual is hateful, is a nothing sentence. It’s not an opening of discourse or planet brained insight. When asked a follow up, to elucidate, you assume the position of actors and extol your own virtue by putting down the rest.
It’s nout but antagonism for the purpose of whysoever a troll would do anything. Getting jollies off by calling high horse, or moral corruption.
You make playing in the shit look like fun, and then feign upset when others join you.
I don’t answer your questions because you’re disingenuous in asking them. Palestinians kill Israelis, giving them a justification for killing the Palestinians, which they do, giving the Palestinians a justification for killing Israelis. Either killing others because they are killing you is justified, or it’s not. But if you’re going to argue that it’s justified, then it’s justified for everyone. When you pick and choose which killers’ justifications you want to defend, you’re disguising a distinction that’s not really rooted in the act of killing, but in some other criterion (racism, maybe?).
If one side kills 100 for each one of their own killed there’s a big difference. Other factors to consider is when your land is blocked off from the outside world by land, sea and air and being routinely invaded. The Geneva convention says there is a right to resist occupation on top of that which Israel did sign.
I’m not even necessarily talking about the current situation here.
I’m asking you, where your line in the sand is.
If someone was in your home, threatening your life, or your loved one’s lives, and they absolutely were not empty threats, would violence to the point of killing be “justified”?
For example, should the Ukrainians not defend their sovereignty, on their own soil, because killing at all is immoral?
You came at this with a black and white statement, but there are nuances to the world that shape the decisions outside of a binary “they killed/didn’t kill”
So in your mindset, there’s zero point where killing is “justifiable”?
I’m legitimately asking here.
In a perfect world, people would respect boundaries, not start war, or genocides to further their own beliefs.
What do you propose people facing extinction do? Parlay?
That’s a lot of words to avoid acknowledging your own moral corruption for openly calling for people to be killed. Go troll someone else, you hateful, violent prick.
Jesus, those are some thoroughly piss-soaked chips you’ve got there, petal.
Wow, if that’s an attempt at a coherent thought, you’ve got a long way to go.
Your ability to admit you don’t understand it is a big step. Now you just need to address your previous commenters in the same light, with the questions you’ve been asked and are too afraid to answer. We believe in you, champ.
Nice attempt at trolling. Try not cheering for people to be killed before you get up on your high horse.
Ahhhh, I get it. No instances of me cheering at the death of others, so the other party has to fake the argument. Petty, and a pity.
Come now, you’ve started discourse with others, you really ought to answer their questions.
You’re literally in a thread about a guy cheering for the death of others and you’ve decided to troll the guy saying that killing is morally wrong. How can you say this shit with a straight face?
Saying that killing is morally wrong, or saying that an individual is hateful, is a nothing sentence. It’s not an opening of discourse or planet brained insight. When asked a follow up, to elucidate, you assume the position of actors and extol your own virtue by putting down the rest.
It’s nout but antagonism for the purpose of whysoever a troll would do anything. Getting jollies off by calling high horse, or moral corruption.
You make playing in the shit look like fun, and then feign upset when others join you.
Troll? You haven’t answered either of my questions? Lmao. Not everything is black and white my guy.
Again, I am legitimately curious what your opinions about this are.
You can sling insults all you want. It doesn’t further your argument in any legitimate way.
I don’t answer your questions because you’re disingenuous in asking them. Palestinians kill Israelis, giving them a justification for killing the Palestinians, which they do, giving the Palestinians a justification for killing Israelis. Either killing others because they are killing you is justified, or it’s not. But if you’re going to argue that it’s justified, then it’s justified for everyone. When you pick and choose which killers’ justifications you want to defend, you’re disguising a distinction that’s not really rooted in the act of killing, but in some other criterion (racism, maybe?).
If one side kills 100 for each one of their own killed there’s a big difference. Other factors to consider is when your land is blocked off from the outside world by land, sea and air and being routinely invaded. The Geneva convention says there is a right to resist occupation on top of that which Israel did sign.
I am not disingenuous in asking them.
I’m not even necessarily talking about the current situation here.
I’m asking you, where your line in the sand is.
If someone was in your home, threatening your life, or your loved one’s lives, and they absolutely were not empty threats, would violence to the point of killing be “justified”?
For example, should the Ukrainians not defend their sovereignty, on their own soil, because killing at all is immoral?
You came at this with a black and white statement, but there are nuances to the world that shape the decisions outside of a binary “they killed/didn’t kill”