Uncle Joe began as a gangster and ended as a larger-scale gangster. His chief reason to use violence was to satisfy his hunger for power. His next, to get rid of people whom he considered a threat to his power. His third, to advance a cause he pledged loyalty to (by Lenin’s coffin) — to enrich the poor by expropriating and annihilating the rich, and to spread the Soviet power worldwide.

Needless to say that I endorse none of the three.
The problem is, none of the three applies to ABB. You haven’t addressed his case at the slightest by invoking Stalin’s.

Do you have a better argument? Or, at least, more relevant to the case?
Look, it’s not as if I challenged you to prove Fermat’s Grand Theorem. I am challenging you to prove a point you deem absolutely obvious, and of great importance to you.
Are you _that_ helpless?

Oh, now you get to decide what is or isn’t an idea. Something about

The best laid plans of mice and men go agley

Heard of that LEX? What comes before a plan LXE? An idea? You do know about sophistry?

You seem to be a person in love with his own words who doesn’t want to concede that murdering defenseless young people in mass for political (or any reason) is reprehensible.

Your seem to have a very deep dark sense of what is morally justified.

Making omelets and using eggs, LXE? Oh, that was another Russian. Uncle Joe was Georgian, so he doesn’t count?

By contrast, a proposed reason *why* such a plan is good or bad may be an idea worthy of discussion, particularly in the context of the cognitive, legal and social aspects of religion.

You can, of course, say that the terribility of this plan needs no proof; that it is, so to say, axiomatically terrible. Declaring so is a right you are entitled to.

It would mean, however, that your views on morality lack any depth. Someone whose chief argument regarding the good and the evil is “I feel so and so” can’t meaningfully object to people who feel differently — unless, of course, he uses other means to make himself a noticeable example to follow.

I invite you to make your case and explain why *you* — you specifically — deem politically motivated violence wrong.
I am moving my king’s pawn from e2 to e4. Politics (as opposed to business) is proxy for legalized violence. Any political statement, other than “such and such law should be repealed”, aims at establishing new sufficient causes (some would say — new excuses) for violent confrontations. How would you challenge that?

To be

more successful promoting your ideas

consider that the idea of mass murder of unarmed political opponents isn’t a good idea.

Just a thought you might consider.

If you mean that certain people’s contribution to the common welfare is negative, can’t agree more.

Homicidal ideation isn’t a good thing.

Try prayer.

Another professor, who knew?

Also, you would sound more convincing once you begin arguing in good faith, but I am repeating myself.

May God bless and welcome you. (If it sounds like a direct quote, it’s because it is.)

Sad, truly sad.

Enjoy (?) your fantasies. Or better yet, try prayer.

Try not to be “tomeish.” Counting angels dancing on pinheads has been tried.

Exactly.
The GCD (greatest common denominator) of the pro-choice and “Z” ideologies.

As of myself, I side with Vyacheslav Butusov; “my ideals can’t hurt me, for I am the only crew they have”.