Is there a country where libertarianism has worked out well? — RogueAI

Nothing has worked out worse more consistently than communism.

This reminds me a bit of the canard "There's no such thing as the supernatural; if it exists, it's natural" — Mijin

Yes, if you can't give a hypothetical example of a supernatural event (i.e. it exists in no possible world), then it owes it non-existence to it being a logical contradiction and not just an empirical absence. That is, it's analytically true, but synthetically true.

slippery slop — Copernicus

Slippery slop is the best slop of all.

But, no, I don’t think the staunchest of Libertarians would suggest unrestrained freedom of choice be afforded to children.

Ideally yes, but if the parents are determined to not stick around, then they will not feed or look after the baby. In that case, we would probably want a safety net that feeds and looks after the baby in the absence of parents. — 83nt0n

This would invoke a literal paternalism where a societal demand is placed to care for children, either by the parents themselves or a state surrogate if the parents unavailable, but that need not be expanded to a demand that able bodied adults be cared for as if children.

Rupture and Reconstruction, the transformation of modern orthodoxy by Haym Soloveitchik.

It tracks how Orthodox Judaism has changed dramatically over that past few decades, pushing towards a rigorous text based culture from one that was mimetic previously, largely gathering cultural values and norms from observations of one's family and community's practice.

Not of general interest I suppose, but it did (IMO) offer insight into whether American ideological divisions occur based upon mimetic/text based distinctions, with conservatives leaning heavily upon textual interpretation (either statutory, Constitutional, or even Scriptural) as opposed to learning values by observation, mimicry and reevaluation of norms over time. This seems a reasonable suggestion given the conservative's brittleness to change, demand for textual support for authentication of truth, and skepticism over responsive modification of values based upon evolving social issues.

"Unbinding Isaac" by Aaron Koller. The better part of the book critiques Kierkegaard, which I've not gotten to, but he does present an interesting take on the parable. The sacrifice of Isaac symbolizes parental obligations forced upon children, burdening them with the parental failings, and the ram symbolizing pride, which ought be sacrificed instead.

The Vietnam War as an example (mine).. Kids sacrificed for a false belief, when what ought have been sacrificed is the belief. The kids were sacrificed, but the ram of pride survived, violating the lesson of the Akedah.

I was really just referring to cause and purpose in the context of human life. Humans haven’t always existed, and nor did we spontaneously and without cause come into existence at some point in the past. — Michael

This identifies the Principle of Sufficient Reason problem. We look for an explanation for everything in existence, and if we make an assertion that the thing always existed, then we're asserting it's just a brute fact (which is how some identify God). That is, if we say the universe has always existed, first consisting of primordial matter and later of more organized formations like humans, we are asserting a brute fact (the universe has just always been), but then you're disallowing that to apply to humans because you instinctively understand a human can't just suddenly occur from nowhere and that it cannot have always existed either. You are saying we need a sufficient reason to explain human existence but we don't need the same of the universe as a whole.

The problem is that what you say of humans in terms of that they must have come from something, you must also say of the universe. You can no more declare that humans are contingent upon causes due to something you identify as particular in humans that you are not also required to consistently apply to the universe wholly. If there is, you must identify what that is, but it cannot be the complexity of humans versus the complexity of the universe, as the laws of the universe as they must have existed in their primordial form arguably are significantly more complex than humans.

A way to resolve the PSR problem is to give a sufficient reason for the existence of humans and the universe, and there is nothing to require that the reason be a cause. The reason could be a purpose, meaning it makes as much sense logically to declare a first cause as the reason for our existence as it does a final purpose for our existence. That we have no way of knowing what the purpose is (or what the first cause was) is obvious, and both suffer an incoherence problem in trying to transcend the universe to explain the universe (i.e. looking for something outside the universe that caused the first cause or looking outside the universe for what gave the universe purpose). But these challenges are equal for either a teleological or a causal model.

“Cause” and “purpose” mean different things. There must be a cause but there might not be a purpose. — Michael

I think that crystalizes the position well, but problems remain:

It doesn't remedy your problem of wanting control over your life because that would require something interfering with the causal chain.

It eliminates any way to explain the origin of the matter that existed at the time of the Big Bang because "origin" references a first cause which cannot be if "there must be a cause" for everything.

And, probably most importantly, your comment is a statement of a worldview, which might just be a foundational disagreement. I think many do believe the opposite, as in "There must be a purpose, but there might not be a cause." This is consistent with a theological position, arguing from positions of eternity, creation ex nihlio, and ultimate purpose.

We're passengers and crew on a great, ancient ship tossed about in an endless storm. — 180 Proof

Yeah, but you don't ask how we got upon the ship. It's a reasonable question with no reasonable answer. Either it's not just an ancient ship, but an eternal one, or else some fucker put us here. So, pick your poison: you believe in eternal ships tossing about at sea that never got here but were always here or you believe in a shipbuilder.

What matters most, it seems to me, is deciding how we choose to spend whatever time we have. — 180 Proof

Yep, and we choose to spend it right here.

Purpose is an intended outcome. Asking for the "purpose" of life is asking for the outcome that the existence of life is intended to achieve. That requires that someone or something with intentions created and/or is using life to achieve that outcome, e.g. one or more gods perhaps.

Personally, I'd prefer it if my life wasn't being used by someone or something else as pawn in whatever game they're playing. I decide for myself what to do with my time here. — Michael

Your preference then is that you have a preference, which is no more or less difficult to acheive whether you accept a teleological model or a causal one.

That is, the flip side of the coin of "asking for the "purpose" of life is asking for the outcome that the existence of life is intended to achieve" is "asking for the "cause" of life is asking for the origin that the existence of life is supposed to have originated from."

The reason it might matter to know the origin under a causal model is to know where you're going to end up given the chain of causes that will follow, just as we might want to know our final destination so that we can know what events will lead up to the final teleos under a teleological model.

In either event the determinism or fatalism is disrupted by free will. So, what you want is preference (i.e. free will), regardless of whether our existence is owed to random causes or a purposeful god.

I have a problem and look to you for a solution. — Outlander

As you should.

Surely you can forgive me. — Outlander

You must work harder for atonement than simply asking for forgiveness.

Let's start over. If one was non-sighted (I.E. blind), that person would never know the beauty of a sunset, nor that it is different from an otherwise beautiful arrangement of words or rulings. — Outlander

I think you're likely right that a blind person would not know the beauty of sight, much like a non-thinking person would suffer from being unable to appreciate the beauty of thought.

The idea of a "difference" is obvious, no different than one drink being flavored citrus and another being flavored non-citrus, but my question is, regardless of whether one is able to detect such flavoring or not, is inability of such truly defining of the overall experience? — Outlander

Ah, yes, the age old question of trying to decipher the difference between essays and sunsets that has troubled mankind since the cave dwellers. Let's see, a sunset is natural, an essay man-made. A sunset is sensory, yet an essay intellectual. A sunset might be temporary and fleeting, yet an essay enduring. An essay requires some cultivation, the product of learning and culture, yet a sunset fairly universal (unless you're blind or perhaps wearing a sleeping mask). One is linguitic, doubtfully appreciated by dogs, cats, and mice, but it's potentially possible they would enjoy a lovely sunset. My cat does enjoy the hottest spot in the room, typically within the sun's rays. But is my cat's appreciation of a carefree day at all like my appreciation? It's hard to know what Gumbo thinks.

The question then is what does an essay and sunset have in common that might allow us to call them both "beautiful." This question, I did not realize when first posed, was deeply insulting to the blind (i.e. non-sighted), so I reask it with much trepidation. But that, all along, was the question.

Yes, I know your type. Of course, not with other people around. — Outlander

You're ridiculous.

. A poem or "legal ruling" can be beautiful. But you insist "not like a sunset." — Outlander

The reason I said that the beauty of a sunset and a legal ruling are different is because they are. You think that's because I hate blind people and that you're going to expose that hatred regardless of my efforts to conceal it. I'm somewhere between appreciating your schtick if it's intended as nonsense and wondering whether you can think straight.

In any event, I've grown tired of the nonsense, but do enjoy the rest of your day.

My "need" or rather point expressed is that, as a sighted, non-blind person, you don't know the world they experience. I thought that was the whole point of idea of philosophy in regards to qualia. — Outlander

I'm sort of wondering why you're discussing qualia about right now, with it not having to do with anything we were talking about. I don't have a problem with tangents or even distant associations of one concept with the other, but this is entirely unrelated, like you just wanted to start arguing that the blind people are missing certain qualitative states that non-blind people are. But I'll agree, to the extent qualia exist, I would agree blind people would be missing the qualia of non-blind people, namely the stuff of seeing.

we look at them as some sort of pariah or outcast, — Outlander

Now we're flying over the cuckoo's nest. No one is telling blind people they are pariahs, but if you know someone who is, you ought tell them to stop bullying the blind.

Also, as a fellow lawyer-in-practice let's not ignore the fact it was you who first intended to isolate visual art with your statement "a legal argument could be beautiful, but not like a sunset". — Outlander

My objective, which is not that hard to decipher, was to point out the varying ways "beautiful" might be defined, which isn't terribly controversial because it forms the better part of aesthetics, which is to define beauty.

I don't know what it is you're trying to do, but you're not doing it very well. Which is out of character for you — Outlander

I will try to better do what you don't know what I'm trying to do so that I can do it the way you have come to expect.

You first claim "art" is a form of language. Meaning it can be fully, or at least sufficiently experienced by those who are limited to such (say, the blind). Yet, people who can see enjoy art and visual experiences, they consider this a staple of the human experience. Do you disagree? — Outlander

What I mean is that all language is a form of poetry to the extent it is an abstraction of reality highly influenced by perspective and comparitive evaluation (i.e. metaphor). Along with this expansive view of language, I accept art as language, as being a form of communication formed through symbolism to communicative thought.

Your need to isolate visual art as being of some special category of art that needs to be discussed is elusive as is your need to protect the blind from what you envision are attacks on their limitations.

It's just an alien concept exclusive to those who have perfect or otherwise functional vision — Outlander

I don't see how you derived that from what I said. The blind can have feelings of beauty, but obviously not from what they see. The question was what was consistent within the term "beauty" that makes it apply across all uses of the term beauty (which could include written essays, sunsets, music, or whatever).

For some reason in this thread I have this post of yours quoted, so I'll include surely it only ages to show my point. For shame! — Outlander

I really don't follow how I've been incosistent is arguing that all language offers some degree of metaphor and then in my asking for a definition of beauty that allows it to apply across diverse experiences. I might generously read in that you're suggesting if art is omnipresent in communication than beauty must also be (which might be true if all art must contain beauty), but that hardly is contradicted by my asking for a definition of art.

But seriously, don’t you ever read a legal argument or decision that you think is beautiful, wonderful. I do. — T Clark

As if all you have to say is "but seriously" and that will somehow keep me on task?

But seriously, I think you're using the term "beautiful" here in a pretty broad way, so maybe a legal argument could be beautiful, but not like a sunset. This issue isn't a small one because the definition of "beauty" is obviously central to aesthetics and this whole conversation.

So, define "beauty" so that the term makes sense in claiming a legal brief is beautiful in some way as is a sunset beautiful so that the term can be applied to both. I would think the similarity would rest somewhere in the feeling evoked from both, but I'm not really sure.

What saith Collingswood on it?

So here's a fairly comprehensive article on the issue, drawing the distinction between market restrictions on free speech and governmental ones. The latter receive First Amendment protections and it's what made Carr's comments so troubling. https://reason.com/2025/09/18/brendan-carr-flagrantly-abused-his-powers-to-cancel-jimmy-kimmel/

This is from Reason, a libertarian, anti-regulatory organization.

I saw Ben Shapiro arguing the validity of Kimmel's cancelation, trying to argue it was organic, arising over outrage over Kimmel's comments and spiraling ratings, but that argument can't be made with any credibility, considering Carr's mafioso comments ("we can do this the easy way or hard way").

The NYT I believe has now been told it must receive approval from the Pentagon before publishing DOD articles, but it has refused.

While I understand this id just more of an expression of Trump's need for complete control, it's counter to basic conservative principles and wholly unnecessary. Trumpians ignore any outlet critical of him, so silencing Kimmel was nothing but a petty win against someone who had no effect on Trump.

But the president and government agencies threatening to revoke their critics’ licenses is a different matter entirely. — Michael

Yeah, there's a huge difference between the two.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ted-cruz-fcc-brendan-carr-jimmy-kimmel-goodfellas-trump/

For what it’s worth, I’ve also found beauty in well thought out and well written legal decisions. — T Clark

I just wrote what I consider a most beautiful work of art. It argued that the condominium covenants did not bind the association to protect against water heater leaks from individual units, but that obligation rested entirely with the individual unit owners. It was a work so maginficent, it made the Sistine Chapel look like a steaming pile of cat shit.

I don't live under any illusions. Anti-semitism, racism, bigotry, various brands of phobias exist all too frequently, and we remain suspicious of those unlike us. This isn't to offer an excuse, but it's just the reality that one has to accept to get along in the world. Everyone is Archie Bunker. Lovable and not so lovable given the right day.

But Jews are a diverse group. There are a thousand miles of difference between Hannah Einbinder (look her up), Netanhyahu, and Menachem Schneerson (look him up) and many others. There were in fact many openly communist Jews and many are very liberal, but many like Hanover (look him up), not so much.

If your objective it to make me remove Kirk from the Saint list, I never put him there, but if it's to have some understanding for those who felt a fleeting sense of joy at his having been shot in the neck, you'll be wasting your time. Sympathy for the devil is one of the highest sins.

I have made the argument that there is beauty in a set of construction specifications. — T Clark

I find beauty in the diversity of personalities, including those so boring they find beauty in blueprints.

My view is that the way to deal with people like Kirk is to engage them reasonably. — Baden

But of course, and while I appreciate you have other things you'd like to do, you might want to listen to Kirk a bit (if you haven't) to really see where he stood. He was not a firebrand and he really didn't spew hatred in the sense that I think some on the left think he did. He represented, to be sure, a distateful element for the left, but he was pretty much a rank and file devout Christian who spoke the tenants of his faith. He did not suggest anyone should kill or hate. That was not his message. And this isn't me defending his Christian views because I don't hold them.

The secular "religious" view holds the protection of homosexual and transsexual rights in very high regard and it also places a very high priority on things like climate change. I can respect these views, as I can of any other highly prioritized view among a group, but those holding these secular views have to reflect upon the fact that a war for their cause is no different than any other holy war one might want to declare. What also has to be remembered is that the views I've itemized are not the views of your grandparents and maybe not your parents, meaning they are extremely new in terms of what we typically accept as societal norms. Villifying someone who hasn't adopted the morality du jour, even if it should one day prove itself worthy of eternal acceptance, is not a realistic response to someone not being as receptive to change as you might be.

My point here is just that I see nothing but unmitigated tragedy in Kirk's death, unreduced an iota that he might have held views conflicting with my own. The world is a worse place for his death. Period. This view is a largely held one, and it's why those who hold otherwise are being cast aside daily as unfit for civil discourse. Whether that is the proper response or not might be a question, but condemning them is not.

Language itself or how language is used? Do you have a favourite aesthetic experience out of poetry, painting, architecture or nature? — Tom Storm

That's right, there was some ambiguity there. My position was that language is any form of communication and that all forms of communication are representative, metaphoric, non-specific, and infused with personal perspective. That is, the line between what we designate as poetic and literal is arbitrary and that all is poetic at some level.

That's what I meant.

Maybe that's what @t clark meant as well, although he could just be saying that certain linguistic forms (but not all) are artistic, like poetry, music or the like.

But to your question asking whether one might have a favorite aesthetic experience, I think that's a valid question, but I would go as far as to say that everything provides an aesthtetic experience. Of course, this theory of mine isn't entirely developed and it could make no sense at some level, but that's my instinctive response.

I did find these quotes from Wittgenstein, where he apparently disagrees with my analysis:

"Do not forget that a poem, although it is composed in the language of information, is not used in the language-game of giving information."

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zettel

"Philosophy ought really to be written only as a form of poetry. (Philosophie dürfte man eigentlich nur dichten.)"

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value

This suggests a poem, in being for a different purpose, is a different sort of language game. I can accept that different sentences might be for different purposes, but I can't see where the poetic game must be different than the literal game in all instances. That is, a poem can be used to give information, and I don't know how to work through what counts as "information" and what doesn't.

That is, there can be more beauty in an analytical essay than a limerick.

Perhaps your point is more about the misuse of an expression rather than an argument that it not be used at all. — Banno

Possibly, but the bigger point being advanced here seems to be that the term "hate speech" is a lab created neologism designed for the purpose of denigrating one's opponent's political positions as being evil or shameful.

That is, under this description, if someone condemns transsexualsim, referring to that as "hate speech" is just a politically expedient way of shutting down the coversation as off limits in civil society.

The argument would therefore be that "hate speech" is not an otherwise useful term being misused, but that it's a term designed for misuse, a special tool to shut down one's opponents, especially as applied to values advanced by liberal progressives but disputed by conservatives.

While the UN might have a definition that limits the term in a way that should reduce its misuse, that doesn't impact how the term is typically used in the vernacular which is, of course, how it is commonly used, which is therefore what it commonly means.

Being told therefore that I might be engaging in hate speech might mean something serious or it might just mean my opinion is being vetoed as non-compliant with certain community standards.

Well I totally wasn't fishing for compliments, but I expect you are, so - the feeling is entirely mutual. Nothing wrong with our mirrors, eh? Like a little echo chamber of love and admiration, we are. — unenlightened

No, really I wasn't. I was just maintaining my view of the infinite worth of all people, even those who might deny it. Just because the assessment might be of yourself doesn't mean you can question the inherent value of any human.

God's little children have value even if they think they don't and even if driven to such beliefs by humility.

Thanks to the association of particular images and recollections, a dog reacts in a similar manner to the similar particular impressions his eyes or his nose receive from this thing we call a piece of sugar or this thing we call an intruder; he does not know what is 'sugar' or what is 'intruder'. — The Cultural Impact of Empiricism

What scientific study does he cite for this empirical claim? If my dog goes and gets a ball when I say "go get your ball," even new balls not previously seen, have I disproved his claim by showing the dog's understanding of categories? If not, what evidence disproves his claim?

It wouldn't affect me in the slightest if I didn't exist; but look at all the pearls of wisdom the forum would be lacking! A tragedy to contemplate and thank providence we have avoided. — unenlightened

Well, it wouldn't affect you because there'd be no you to affect, so there's that.

While I know you're being sarcastic, I will say that your not being here would profoundly matter.

I once remarked to a female friend about the lack of females on a philosophy forum. — Jack Cummins

It's because men and women are different beyond simple anatomical differences.

Who sees it differently? Please correct me. — Roke

Hate I suppose is in the eye of the beholder, to a point. I mean "I hate you" is pretty clear, and you could substitute "you" for all sorts of ethnicities, religions and whatever else and that'd be hate speech.

The question isn't so much what we call certain speech, but what we do about it. The line you cross in illegalizing certain types of speech is in suppressing free speech, so I would tend to defer to allowing more sorts of speech than others. That doesn't mean I can't otherwise be socially punished by my speech because speech has consequences.

So, whether you think anti-trans talk is hate speech or you think anti-Kirk talk is hate speech is up to you, and I don't think in either instance should someone be criminally punished for either of them. But, I do expect you might lose your job or social standing if you engage in certain types of speech (call it hate speech or not), but we can all choose which people we want to hate us by what we choose to say.

Maybe if you're really wondering what might be hate speech, instead of asking yourself whether you are hateful in saying it, ask yourself whether you expect others to hate you for saying it and then you can decide whether you want to be hated. Some people do, especially if they can get the people they already hate to hate them back even more. That's a fairly common game.

They stress that language is not primarily a system of communication, but a system of thought. Communication is a secondary use of an internal capacity for structuring and manipulating concepts. Animal communication systems (e.g., vervet alarm calls) are qualitatively different, not primitive stages of language. — Wayfarer

So if I seperate out propositions from sentences, where a proposition is knowledge of an event (e.g. the cat is on the mat) and a sentence is the linguistic representation of that knowledege "The cat is on the mat," it seems reasonable a dog would know the cat is on the mat (i.e. possess the propositional knowlege), but not be able to linguistically form it into a sentence (or utterance). My question then is if the dog had propositional knowledge, then he is engaging in thought, and the dog might also know that if he tries to sit on the mat next to the cat he will be swatted. Is this then the distinction you're drawing between humans and animals just that humans are unusual in that they use sentences to express their thoughts where animals do not?

Or, does my problem rest in the assumption made by cognitive scientists that a proposition can exist without a sentence? If that is my error, how is it best argued do you think? It does seem propositional knowledge can exist without a sentence.

People do not think in English or Chinese or Apache; they think in a language of thought.

Pinker's (and Fodor's) theory of mentalese, which is that there is a primordial language pre-existing the creation of utterances or symbols is controversial and not well accepted. It's generally accepted though that an experience can exist without language and that experience might precede reduction to language, but that doesn't suggest the pre-existing experience was some sort of primordial language, but only suggests there are experiences that pre-exist language.

My point is that your quote is of a position that is generally challenged and not widely held.

Collingwood says the purpose of art is to express the artist’s experience. Our goal in looking at art is to try to share that same experience with them. — T Clark

My view of art is that it is a form of language, and the expression through painting is just another way of speaking, writing, or grunting.

The above comment therefore is a work of art, hopefully acheiving the goal of your sharing the experience I had of thinking it.

Each person has some significant role in history and the development of ideas. — Jack Cummins

But there are those who live and die in anonymity and some live even less than a day, and I'd still be as committed to their significance. This just means we needn't search for what they've done to make themselves worthy, but that their worth is inherent, part of their being. That each person is infinitely valuable requires that you offer them room to live out their lives, not placing yourself in front of them and so it demands respect of others.

You can either accept what I'm saying just as part of your worldview or faith, or you can ask yourself the pragmatic question as to what would be gained to evaluate each of us as but an interesting conclusion to billions of years of evolution, no more or less significant than any other random assortment of stuff.

EDIT: I am not saying America is Nazi Germany etc etc, only that it being a murder is not the end of the argument but the beginning. — Baden

This is, candidly, absurd. Nazis systematically herded 6 million Jews to death camps, gassed them, and set their remains on fire with the aim of bringing about thei extinction of their race. Kirk talked on campuses and held views inconsistent with yours.

The question of self defense, with its well developed jurisprudence related to reasonable force, protection from imminent harm, etc offers an easy enough way to distinguish taking a sniper shot at Kirk versus Hitler, ,assuming you were otherwise blind to the other glaring differences.

As an aside, since it matters so little to me exactly where he fell on the political spectrum in terms of his simple expression of his views as not grounds to murder him, I do not agree with the casual villification of Kirk. I saw him as a kind hearted sort with a sincere Christian faith, with views obviously inconsistent with my own on a variety of topics, but not the evil incarnate he's being painted as.

I respect the unhappiness it brings to have questioned the ethical propriety of one's sexual or gender preference, which is hardly distinct from those telling me Jews like me are destined to hell for my beliefs, but that doesn't justify my declaration of victimhood and my right to lash out. The world is full of disagreement and the anti-social way a murderer handles that isn't cause to reassess whether the anti-social psychopaths might have it right.

What this strikes me then is not a legitimate philosophical question as to whether Kirk's murder constituted self-defense, but instead in his opponents searching for some possible mitigation in the evil iof his murder. As in, a hateful bastard who is killed for his hate can't be just like this murder of Mother Thersa. Well it is. The rule is not to do unto others as you think they would have done unto you.

Are you suggesting that conscious beings actually turn the pages of time? or would it be just one conscious being who does this, God? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know. The book is a confusing way to look at it, differing from the movie analogy, but it seems just as valid. The movie moves by itself, but not the book, which makes the movie comparison reflective of a mind independent reality that reveals seen or not. The book though requires a page turner. I guess if you pick the book comparison you impose a greater role of consciousness dictating reality than the movie.

For myself, at least, when I reflect from a position that wants pacifism I end up here: So the world hates this idea because it's (EDIT: "violence is") justified sometimes. — Moliere

The OP would not be at all provocative if it were presented this abstractly, simply asking the question of when violence is permitted and when it is not. The OP, however, presented the question of whether the assassination of Charlie Kirk was justified under the logic employed during the Civil Rights Movement, suggesting that the plight of today’s left is much like the plight of African Americans in the 1960s, and so now is the time to take up arms.

One must wonder if anyone so repulsed by Charlie Kirk actually watched his videos. He was a Christian conservative to be sure, but not a firebrand. His shtick was to debate college students who would approach the mic.

One must also wonder if anyone who finds consistency between Kirk’s assassin and Malcolm X has actually read Malcolm X.

The comment, for example, by Malcolm X: “If they don’t want you and me to get violent, then stop the racists from being violent. Don’t teach us nonviolence while those crackers are violent. Those days are over” is an appeal to self-defense, alluding to instances where MLK’s strategy of nonviolence is suicidal. It is, of course, philosophically reasonable to want to parse out those moments when the violence against someone is great enough to justify lashing out with additional violence, but not by citing an instance that is nowhere near a close call.

If you actually think it’s a hard one to noodle through whether someone who holds political views on abortion, homosexuality, transsexualism, guns, and the climate should be executed by a rifle in a public arena at the will of any random citizen, then this is not a conversation about pacifism versus violence generally. It is a conversation with someone who doesn’t know basic right from wrong.

Spare us the lecture, Hanover. — RogueAI

It's not a lecture. All I've said is screamingly obvious.

Yes, let's be very careful not to denigrate our murderous sniper too hastily at the risk of disrespecting his true nature.

I take great comfort in knowing the naval gazing opinions on our odd board carry no sway

I don't see how you could disagree to the possibility of my alternate suggestion. — Outlander

Sure, we'll have to wait and see if a schizophrenic climbed a roof to take down someone who just happened to be politically divisive and who now hides himself away, or we'll have to see if maybe the shooter was just mistaken, thinking he was engaging in some sort of innocuous behavior that turned to look suspiciously like 1st degree murder, or whatever else we might concoct.

Your approach is to ignore the OP"s concerns (might the shooting be the "by and means necessary" of Malcolm X), but just to say "guys, let's not rush to judgment:." But I'll go out on a limb here and judge the video I saw of a guy shot in the neck while sitting in chair talking on a college campus answering questions and doing whatever social media people do.

But if you're right, and alien abduction or whatnot brought us here, I'll eat crow.

I'll go on record with what ought be an obvious sentiment, which is that the capital murderer who assassinated a young father of two from a rooftop with likely a hunting rifle was not an anti-hero who meted out any sort of just dessert, but a useless coward who is in desperate need of .justice from those hunting him down as he hides among innocent students.

His was an act of pure evil, worthy of nothing but unequivocal condemnation, unnuanced, with no hidden irony, intelligence or purpose that could possibly give us reason to think it had an ounce of good within it.

As noted, the problems of the world are complex and varied, but the most glaring problem is that every post in this thread doesn't read like mine.