No issues with your first 2 points. 100% agree.
My issue is with your 3rd point, or rather, your issue is with your 3rd point. I’m noting an objective standard being important to me and “my side”. You, and the others in this thread, seem to disagree with that objective standard of good and evil.
I think killing someone for their thoughts or words is evil. This is why I think that the person who murdered Charlie Kirk was evil. I think it was evil for leftists to celebrate the murder of Charlie, but at the same time realize that those are their thoughts and words, so advocating for their death, or killing them, would be evil too.
I also agree that coexisting with these people is impossible, and unlike you, don’t know if it is possible to vote our way out of this. I just am unable to unhinge myself from my objective standards and advocate for the deaths of those I find objectionable based on their thoughts and words, even if those people think differently than me. That is the weak evil mindset of the left, not the mindset of a Christian.
I’m still just baffled by your framework though. Genuinely not trying to be a snarky douche, just trying to understand.
Assuming everything in Germany and Russia occurred as history notes.
Was the USSR evil for the Holodomor they committed in order to reach their end goals?
Were the Nazis evil for the Holocaust they committed in order to reach their end goals?
If one and not the other, why? Is it because of the end goal? And if the end goal is all that matters, does the path taken not change the equation in anyway?
Again, just trying to understand your framework.
@OwenShroyer1776 Mattered to our founders too.
But the new left and right are both allergic to this. Tyler is guilty already, regardless of if he did it, because of who he is.
I’d very much like to destroy the enemy of my civilization, but I’d like to do so with the changing of minds and hearts, not by murdering those who think differently than I.
If that means stripping suffrage, please do it. If that means a king, sure. If that means mass genocide, no. I’m out. Sorry man.
@RWBB4U@MrLeMemeLeGreat@MeinGottNiles “Sir, an innocent civilian just got murdered. Shall I go murder innocent civilians on their side?”
“Of course! I believe in the friend-enemy distinction like they do, and so we must murder as many as we can!”
@MrLeMemeLeGreat@RWBB4U@MeinGottNiles This is the same framework as the left, no?
If a transgender feels that their, let’s say, conservative father would murder them or other transgenders, through your framework, his murder would be justified.
It’s how the left justified and praised Charlie’s murder. That’s evil.
@RWBB4U@MrLeMemeLeGreat@MeinGottNiles So, in this worldview, what is moral is based on what makes sense to you, not an underlying principle?
And, if I’m correct in that understanding, you’re saying this is something that we ought to get better at?
Mark said that the way we are acting towards Turkey is a betrayal to Israel. I simply stated that Jonathan Pollard, an Israeli spy, is an example that immediately comes to mind of Israel betraying us.
He wasn’t and isn’t Israel’s one and only spy, just one that we caught, arrested, then pardoned for God knows why.
Other nations most likely are spying on us, and i would hope you would say that if those spies are caught, we deem it a betrayal of any alliance we might have with them, especially if they steal nuclear secrets to pass along to our enemies.
Will you agree on that front? If a nation (or that nation’s spy) is caught spying, stealing, then selling secrets of ours to our enemies, is that an absolute betrayal that should be viewed as a breach of the alliance?