I can’t say for a fact of course, but are you assuming that I’m idolizing Gandhi?

I think people are really good at lying about people, and subsequently just as good at not even bothering to even begin to consider that what they’re being told regarding someone else might be total bullshit, and nothing but the consequence of the lack of knowledge, or experience specifically, of the woes of slander.

Absolutely, my pleasure.

From what I understand, Tolstoy believed that a more philosophical, objective, non supernatural interpretation of the Gospels but especially of the Sermon On the Mount specifically (Matt 5-6: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV) and its precepts, including to never take an oath at all (including promising to consider anything as infalliable), holds the potential in becoming a kind of constitution for our conscience so to speak, for our hearts, as a species. By constitution I mean something we can gather around and consider a common understanding of how we should be striving to live, something to unite us as a species and make us stronger the same way a constitution does for a nation and did regarding how weak the colonies here in America were back when we didn’t have a constitution to unify us; it only divided us and made us weak and vulnerable.

I’m not 100% on this next bit, but based on reading his non-fiction it sounds like he didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah (savior) in the traditional sense—the Nicene Creed interpretation. I believe Tolstoy believed that Jesus, amongst all the humans that existed both before and after him, was the one that taught and suffered to transfer the knowledge of love so well (not perfectly; if Jesus was God he would’ve done it so perfectly to the point where it would’ve easily have done its job by now) that he considered Jesus to be the bee—amongst all those that came before and after him—that stirred (inspired) the hive (humans) so well that ultimately, one could argue that Jesus saved mankind from its inherency to itself: selfishness, being absent the knowledge of his teaching otherwise—the value and potential of selflessness; Messiah is defined as a savior of a people.

Little do the majority know that they’ve only smothered (yet again, like the Pharisees and Sadducees did in Jesus’ time) the “Law and the Prophets” as a whole: “Love your neighbor as yourself,” by all our (again, yet again) incessant, blind oath taking to our contemporaries. To the point where the precepts—born out of the logic of the “Law and the Prophets” as a whole—of the Sermon On the Mount (selflessness) are the last thing people are met with (in favor of the Nicene Creed, of things Jesus never spoke of or even hinted at when he mimicked Moses, bringing down new commandments during the most public point of his ministry, thus, the most accurate) or are taught when they go to Church or are taught of Jesus today, in favor of securing our or ones place in Heaven (selfishness).

Sounds like someone needs to read Tolstoy’s non-fiction.

Still not Supervillians.

Of course it’s relevant. You’re talking about civilians that make up the real world. I’m talking about people with Super powers that don’t even exist.

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.