You just spent a week arguing it wouldn't be immoral to murder Donald Trump! For what? For speaking out on public policy, and for a majority of voters maybe voting for him. You only care about the free speech of people when they say what you want them to say, and you only care about democracy when the voters vote the way you want. How much more against personal freedom and democracy could you be? If that makes the SD very bad people, what does it make you?
Lol. No, I didn't. I recommend reading the thread again. It was the most hypothetical what ifs imaginable. And the justification assumes that he really does become Hitler 2 and Trump really does kill democracy. Which we couldn't possibly know until after the fact.
Here's what you wrote:
At heart I'm a pragmatist. If killing Trump might save us from a third world war against Russia and the Islamic world, one little bullet to the head is a small price to pay. I am serious. Trump is saying all the wrong words. That stuff needs to be taken seriously. I couldn't think of a more obvious candidate for Hitler 2.
Not "If killing Trump really does". "If killing Trump might". Well, killing Trump might. Your justification assumed that he really might become Hitler 2; it didn't assume he really does become Hitler 2.
Here's what else you wrote:
The best argument I can think of against killing Trump is that I don't want violence to be part of the political process. It was precisely this shift in public opinion that led to the fall of the Roman Republic. If killing him is the start of a pattern we all know the liberals will lose.
Your objection to killing Trump isn't a moral objection; you're just concerned there may be consequences you don't want. Like you said, you're a pragmatist. When Underseer raised a moral objection, you called the idea "laughably stupid".
Which makes this entire rant you did above stupid. If you have a point to make about something I wrote in another thread, why not write it in that thread instead?
Excuse me? If I'd made my point in the other thread you'd have said exactly the same thing. When you take two diametrically opposed positions in two different threads, I'm going to have to reference one thread in the other in order to point it out.
You accuse Trump of being Hitler 2. If you want to preach that voters' getting to elect their choice and Trump getting to speak his mind aren't things that matter morally, knock yourself out.
You accuse the Sweden Democrats of thinking democracy and freedom aren't things that matter morally. If you want to preach that this means the Sweden Democrats are very bad people, knock yourself out.
But when you do both, I'm going to call you on your hypocrisy. See how it works?
(I don't mean to imply, though, that there's no difference between you and the SD. The SD didn't ask "If killing Hitler would be moral, does that mean it would moral to kill the Muslims?".)