Lmao, it’s so hard to argue that point I have to admit.

Ultimately I think there would be Superhero ways to contain SuperVillians. You honestly think Lex would be able to get out again and again from something like that? Can’t help but to think something like that would be the way to go.

Hate doesn’t know any better, love does.

Not with Superpowers, on a SuperVillian level.

Farthest thing from a Superpower.

Hate only ever leads to more hate, it’s a game played best by children, and full grown adults that don’t know any better.

Snapped who’s neck? A Supervillians? Because that’s not what I’m referring to. No, CEO’s aren’t Supervillans, they don’t have any Superpowers.

Supervillians, not some CEO. No CEO’s aren’t supervillains, they don’t have superpowers.

We don’t live in a world where people are freeing themselves from prison on the regular just to “do it all over again.”

Keep in mind we’re talking about a cartoon about Superheroes.

My oginal point still stands: superman wouldn’t murder some CEO, a supervillian on the other hand? That’s an entirely different story.

That’s a supervillan. CEO’s don’t have superpowers.

Explain to me how Superman couldn’t have stopped him without deadly force? He easily could’ve, doesn’t make any sense. This context is also absent of the knowledge of the value of the extremes of the selflessness being common knowledge.

I didn’t even imply that people aren’t heroes. I said: they’re superheroes because they have super powers; humans don’t have super powers. Humans aren’t superheroes

I think the closest we get from a real world’s point of view—in contrast to anything thats ever existed, would be our capacity for selflessness, not only individually, but especially collectively.

I’m not saying I agree with the ethical choice this hypothetical superhero in question made.

No they’re not. They have no super powers, they’re only human. One of which you would be yourself if you shared the same circumstances.

Supervillians are one in a million (friendly reminder that they dont even exist). There’s seemingly an infinite amount of people that would replace every last CEO we kill. And behind every dead body, is a family, friends and who knows who else that would only be given the incentive for revenge; The “vicious cycle” of an eye for an eye.

Yeah but that’s a supervillian, not yet another CEO admist the sea of all the others. Superheroes don’t want to have to kill at all but against evil of that magnitude, they feel as though they must because to not would mean the lives of countless others, so they make that age old ethical choice of killing one to save the lives of potentially even millions.

Superheroes aren’t murderers.

Superman wouldn’t do what that murderer did.

Hey I just wanted to let you know I’m going to be taking the time with your comment at some point either today or tomorrow. I’m sorry for the delay I’ve been too busy. And I want thank you for taking the time at all, can’t tell you how much I appreciate it.

By the way if you’re looking for more evidence check out my post: Socrates, The Story of Jonah, and Jesus.

Never said I did, and it takes far more then that to be considered a Christian to Christians, depending on which type of Christian you’re asking of course. (There’s 35-40 thousand different types to ask apparently)

It worked in gaining India’s independence, amoungst other examples. Things like the idea of Democracy were also seen the same way as you’re seeing our capacity for selflessness now, and returning good for evil done specifically.

“The hardest to love are the ones that need it the most.” - Socrates. Based off my 10 years experience working with them, I can tell you you’re absolutely wrong in ever way in that regard. And it’s less about getting them to stop being a bully, and more about teaching others the relevance of resisting the selfish barbarian within all of us when met with what we hate, to find alternative solutions our inherent ability to logic and reason shows us; like collective love opposed to collective hate, that only ever leads to more hate.

I’m clearly not merely quoting ancient philosophers; especially considering Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK are amoungst them.

You’re only referencing the standards and societal norms of the day. 2+2 is still 4 regardless who says it and who they happen to be underneath; responding to hate and evil with equal parts love and goodness is more logical, regardless if it’s Jesus or Hitler saying it.

Challenging ones own assertions is a huge emphasis of what I have to say: “to never take an oath at all.” And you didn’t challenge my assertions at all, you did nothing but label them and consider them useless as a result.

My argument still stands. You have no idea what your refuting because you haven’t even bothered with what’s being refuted yet; resulting to you walking into contradiction after contradiction. I still have no idea that you have any idea what I’m talking about.

So you’re saying people like Socrates, Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi etc didn’t present any evidence? And what they had to say isn’t worth considering therefore? Because again, the evidence they put forth based off their observation, is the same as mine.

The evidence I present is there, if you would read what I have to say to understand it—opposed to not even bothering with it at all and assume it’s nothing but stoner this or drug addict that—then that’s what we would be talking about right now.

What do you think things like the Big Bang Theory are? Scientific theory, based purely off our ability to observe the world around us. Not to mention philosophy. Why do you bother with anything on this sub then? All you’ll ever find is almost exactly what you just said: personal opinions based off observation.

What makes my personal opinions based off observation any different? I don’t know why I even bother to ask, because you’ll either not reply, or just chalk it up to pontification, despite pontificating to any degree absolutely not something that’s no longer worth considering, not by any means.

The meaning is selflessness; God or not.