@Soap Box yea

@Daniel Bell You're right - revenge is not justice. But this isn't revenge. Revenge is personal, emotional, and extrajudicial. A father hunting down his daughter's killer - that's revenge. This is a court, with evidence, with a conviction, with a process. And the Torah itself explains the PURPOSE of execution - and its not revenge. Its two things: 1. Purge the evil from your midst - protect society by removing a proven threat permanently. 2. And the rest will hear and fear and will not continue to do this evil thing - deterrence. Thats not vengeance. Thats a system designed to protect future victims. The question isnt "does the terrorist deserve to die" - the question is "do future victims deserve to live." Keeping a convicted terrorist alive is a choice too. And that choice has consequences.

@Soap Box "You can't validate any view" — I've been validating every view with arguments this entire time we spent talking. You're the one who responded to my Rand critique with "False" and nothing else. I gave you a logical problem. You haven't answered it yet. "Impose it on others" — where? I shared my perspective on a public forum. You responded. I responded back. That's called a conversation. If exchanging ideas is "imposing," then you're imposing Objectivism. I'm not recruiting. I'm not preaching. I'm answering your points with mine. If that feels like pressure, maybe the arguments are landing harder than you'd like to admit. And honestly? The aggression surprises me. I've been genuinely enjoying our exchanges — no bullshit, no ego, just two people going at it over ideas. That's what forums like this are for. If there's anything you'd like me to stop doing or saying, please share it. I'm willing to adjust to make future conversation better for both of us/ or anybody else I talk to in the future.

@Soap Box First, the tone. "You haven't validated any view" — dismissive. "You won't engage" — presumptuous. "It's a dead end conversation" — that's you walking away and blaming me for not following. Go back and read our exchanges. I gave you a direct logical problem: every man-made moral framework claims objectivity, they all disagree, who settles it. You responded with "False" and nothing else. I pressed further. You flipped it on religion , and I showed you why these are different categories. You moved on... That's not me refusing to engage. That's you not answering. Now, "You won't define what your God is." Soap Box, you never asked. This is the first time you've raised this question with me. Go check. Our entire conversation was about morality, not theology. You're acting like I've been dodging something you never brought up. But fine. You're asking now, so here it is. No dodging. The Torah describes God through what He does Creates. Speaks. Commands. Judges. Keeps covenant. Deuteronomy 4:15: "You saw no form of any kind the day God spoke to you at Horeb." The text explicitly tells you not to picture Him. "You shall make no image" That's not evasion. That's the actual theology. The one time God describes His own character directly is Exodus 34:6-7. He passes before Moses and declares: compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, abundant in kindness and truth, keeping kindness for thousands of generations, forgiving wrongdoing, rebellion, and error. forgiving wrongdoing but not wiping the slate clean. That's the self-description. Actions and attributes, not a body, not a location, not a form. And here's the part you'll probably reject but I'll say it anyway: part of the definition is that He can't be fully defined. Not because I'm dodging, but because that's the nature of what I'm describing. Something infinite doesn't fit in a box. The moment you fully define it, you've limited it, and what you're holding isn't it anymore. That's why the Torah forbids images, not just physical statues, but the mental version too. The attempt to fully capture God is itself the error.

I like it bro, keep it up. You got talent. There were some images I didn't fully get but that's ok. The quality of these cartoons was really high and impressive. Don't let these commenters get you down.

Beautiful 🙏

@Soap Box You just proved my point. You follow Ayn Rand's framework. Someone else follows Kant's. Another follows utilitarianism. A fourth follows Nietzsche. All of them claim morality is "objective." All of them disagree with each other. Who's right? You? By what authority — because Rand's logic feels more convincing to you? That's called a preference, not an absolute. Now multiply that by 8 billion people each picking their favorite philosopher. You're right back in the loop I described. And even if the whole world adopted Rand tomorrow — who says the next generation won't "improve" it? And the one after that? Give it 20 generations and it won't even resemble what you believe today. Man-made frameworks always drift.

@Soap Box I think you're missing something fundamental. A man-made system — Rand, Kant, whoever — can be revised, overruled, or abandoned by the next generation. There's nothing stopping them. That's what "man-made" means. A religious framework claims an authority no human can edit. Nobody walked up to the Torah in 3,000 years and said "I don't like this part, let's update it." You can reject it — but you can't change it. That's a completely different kind of moral frame. You want proof that this difference matters? The Jews survived 2,000 years in exile — scattered, persecuted, no land, no army. Every other nation in that situation disappeared within a few centuries. What held them together? Not philosophy. Not nationalism. A text no one had permission to touch. We can debate which religion got it right — I'd love that conversation. But first, do you see that an unchangeable external system and a man-made revisable one aren't even the same category?