OccamsRazer

Well that wasn't really the question. But actually I met her when we were both pretty young so I don't recall it being much of an issue. We probably talked about kid stuff.

It's not small talk, because i actually care how my wife's day was.

No. That's why it's religion, because it is based on faith. If there were enough evidence then it would be science, or objective fact.

I guess maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Is there any country in the history of time itself that has done anything right?

World War two. You need to get outside more, talk to normal people. Also you could read a history book. You don't accomplish anything with delusional rhetoric.

None at all? Come on...

It sounded like maybe you were secretly happy about the murders, or sympathized a little bit. If not, that's my mistake and I apologize.

I'm addressing the victim blaming apologists in this thread. If that isn't you then carry on.

Free speech means being able to say and support things you believe in without the threat of being murdered for it. Any sympathy for the murderer undermines free speech and democratic society. This is not complicated...

Seems like a lot of victim blaming in here. It can be very simple. Don't murder people you disagree with. Also, free speech needs to be protected culturally as well, and not just through the government. But the government must also protect free speech, and that includes protecting people from others. There doesn't need to be a discussion about understanding motives at all. It's wrong and needs to be condemned, full stop. Otherwise you don't have a free country. You can't hand wave it away or shrug just because you understand their motive.

It's illogical to compare them from a moral perspective. You don't get to just shoot people because they have a different perspective than you, because they were raised differently or get their news from different places than you do. It's not exactly whataboutism though, it's more of a false equivalence. Whatever the case, the gunman is not morally justified in murdering these two people. If you think he is, then you are blinded by ideology and shouldn't be allowed to participate in democratic society.

You aren't over reacting. It's a massive false equivalence comparing what Israel has done against the murder of two individuals. The guy that got murdered isn't Israel. He's a person with opinions, right or wrong. He got murdered for a few tweets and an affiliation with Israel. He's not a combatant, but a civilian. Same for his wife. People justifying these murders are flat out wrong, and there's no place in America for ideological murders. In order to have a system where free speech is protected, you can't allow people to be murdered for their views. There is no defending these murders or trying to justify them.