Conservative activist Charlie Kirk murdered in Utah

[Lucca]

angrypoolman said:

Lucca said:

When one uses an absolute as an argument, such as "you should never celebrate another person's death", it is useful to take it to the extreme and see if it still holds up. Think of the worst person you can, the most evil human being in history. That might be a different person depending on your views. Would it be wrong to celebrate their death? I don't think so, and you most likely don't think so either. In that case, the absolute is false, and there is a line one can cross that would make their death celebratable. You can argue where that line is, whether or not Charlie Kirk's death is celebratable, but you can't use "you shouldn't celebrate another person's death" as a reply to someone doing so.

I can at least confidently say that there is not a single person in american politics (my home country) where I would celebrate this, say this is deserved, or not feel any sort of sympathy/empathy for them or their family. not one. and thats an easy call to make. 

Read my post again. The extreme case for that absolute isn't the worst person *in American politics* *today*, it's the worst person anywhere ever. You can argue that you shouldn't celebrate the death of any current political figures in America, but that is subjective as long as you concede that there has been a person in history whose death is celebratable. An absolute is called an absolute because it has no conditions.

Since the absolute is not true, one has to provide reasons as to why his death should not be celebrated–and grapple with the reasons why it would–instead of just shutting people down with bullshit faux-empathic aphorisms and refusing to think any further about it.