so if people just start beating up say ben shapiro and he gets afraid to talk politics because it you'd be okay with that?

might be bad strategy by if it achieves it end your fine with it

Of course he's a moral relativist

Literally subhuman

that's literally terrorism

so youre not a deontologist? are you consequentialist then?

Do you not remember when this guy said he wanted to see if the results were effective before taking a stance on lobotomies?

I wasn't there for that.

a deontologist would define something as right or wrong based on principles. somehow i dont think youre using that word correctly

It was the last time he was on the call-in show

no, he said he's not one

which would mean that he views right and wrong based on outcomes.

I sincerely hope he just didn't know what "lobotomy" meant

I don't know it seems like he's okay with terrorism as long as its towards his goals

a deontologist would saying the means justifies the ends. a consequentialist would say the ends justify the means

Big I don't think actions are inherently bad I think actions are argued to be bad because of their outcome. So a deontologist believes killing is bad full stop. A consequentialist asks why did you kill and decides if it is bad

See? Moral relativist.

louis fucking christians are consequentialists in some respects

It's not his fault, it's just a product of his lefty upbringing and education. It would be like if your parents and everyone in your life taught you that evil was actually great

only if the deontologist defines all killing as bad.

I'm not seeing a condemnation of terrorism

america was founded on violence for political goals

name a country that wasnt

Violence to free ones self is not violence to stifle other's free expression or change political opinions

terrorism is not bad inherently what if it was a liberal uprising in Germany during Nazi rule, I would not believe this to be bad it is still terrorism though

right but you're basically okay with beating the shit out of people til they conform with your ideas

Violence in defense of one's rights is not terrorism. You aren't trying to change people's minds or enact policy, you're trying to defend yourself

one at a time guys I know im popular

He says, not responding to anything

louis you're changing the definition of terrorism

No, I'm not

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/266396659062145025/628159282403082250/unknown.png

ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

yes

it has nothing to do with rights

a tyrannical government is an illegitimate government, and therefore overthrowing the government would be lawful.

Exactly

unlawful

is the only prerequsit

its an important oine

so in nazi germany they has laws