I know you havent explicitly stated that, I apologize. many people have and it has just been exhausting tonight, exhaustion has been compounded with the fact that i am juat getting over a sickness. so again, apologies for slapping that label on you, it was careless

No, because that's called "Godwins Law" and it shows you have no reasonable argument.

Being "Godly" means he was indoctrinated himself... Making your statement hypocritical at best, bizarre at worst.
Maybe he should have prayed before he went on stage?

Either way, we don't know who attacked Charlie, but left or right, it's wrong... So best not to jump to conclusions until the facts have been established.
I.E. When Trump was targeted by a shooter, it was by someone who voted Republican... But you know, people still jumped to conclusions and blamed the left.

The further left or right you go, the more they are the same.

You're clearly not engaging with anything I actually said, you're just building a straw man of what you think a leftist is. I'm not celebrating his death, and I'm definitely not cheering on the idea of his family seeing something horrific. I was actually shocked by the news, and I actually feel bad for the trauma his family now has to deal with, especially for his children who will have to deal with this event and the public videos of it forever.

What I am saying is that I’m also not going to mourn him or pretend he was some neutral figure who just "had a different opinion". He used his power to spread ideas and narratives that actively harmed people, and he did so deliberately. That’s why so many people feel relief at his absence from public life, not because they enjoy violence but because they see it as an end to his harmful influence. I'd much rather he simply retired, lost his platform, and faded into irrelevance.

There’s a difference between refusing to mourn and celebrating cruelty, and you keep trying to blur that difference so you can dismiss the point entirely.

That’s not what Godwin’s Law means. Godwin’s Law is about the inevitability of nazi comparisons in online discussions, not about whether using an extreme example is a valid way to test an absolute statement. If someone says "never celebrate another person’s death," the claim is absolute, meaning no exceptions. The easiest way to test if an absolute holds is to take it to the most extreme imaginable case and see if it still works. If it doesn’t, then it’s not truly absolute, and the discussion shifts to where the line is. That was all I was trying to do.

I didn't even mention nazis specifically, although "worst person in history" certainly invokes that, indeed. But the point still stands no matter who you think the "worst person in history" is. It could be Hitler, Mao, Marx, Freud, Nero, Jack the Ripper, T. S. Eliot, or the old man from your neighborhood who used to bully you when you were a kid. The point isn’t who you pick, it’s that if your absolute rule has an exception, then it's not truly absolute. It's just something you repeat to cut any argument short and avoid thinking about it.

As an aside, some nazi comparisons are apt (Mike Godwin said so himself). Invoking Godwin's Law whenever one comes up is just lazy.

who honestly even cares about any of this? most people understand that absolutes are never true (an absolute! - im just pointing that out because you would very predictably make mention of it).

usually when people use an absolute like the one you mention, i wouldnt take their words literally. I would assume that they and I understand that there are limits to that blanket statement. its just common sense. like I said before, this point you are making is not profound. I find it boring, frankly 

Should be fired for that kind of statement in a position of education.

If at work I had a go at something I don't agree with in such a manner as that post I would be dismissed without a second thought. 

Debating is how societies grow, learn and change for the better. Hard topics have to be discussed whether we agree with people's views or not. They may talk 80% shit, but the 20% could be something that fundamentally changes things for the better and hopefully move people towards the middle/

If you kill debate, it will fuel rage and anger and civil war between far left and far right.

If you think it’s boring to ask people to back up moral claims with actual reasoning, fine, but don’t confuse your impatience with insightfulness.

The f. is wrong with people. A guy just got killed, he had wife and kids and people trying to find any possible way to justify the murder of another person just because they dont agree with him/her. You people are insane and the fact that some of you are even allowed to post on forums is disturbing.