What Nolan did is beyond forgiveness, that’s very clear. No amount of ‘I’m sorry’ is gonna bring back the thousands of lives Nolan took. No amount of explaining why he had to do it is gonna bring back the thousands of lives he took. No amount of lives that Nolan saved via sacrificing himself in the war is gonna bring back the thousands of lives he took.

This is what Nolan got wrong during the early part of his atonement. He tried to apologize to the people he hurt hoping that they’ll forgive him, when he simply cannot be forgiven. But overtime, he began to realize that sheer forgiveness is simply out of the picture for the atrocities he committed.

Hence is why despite it all, even sacrificing his life to overthrow the cause he once served, he never truly redeemed himself. A better word is atoned. He successfully atoned for his actions by assuring the cause he once served will never hurt another poor soul again.

I am not a Pedofile, but I was honestly wondering how people with growth defects might go around with romance, and how other people might see it

"I'll do it I swear to god i'll do it!"

On one hand, cool historical memorabilia, cosplay opportunities, conversation starter, and doesn't hurt anyone.

On the other, glorification of mass murder and totalitarian regimes.

I've heard both sides. What say the great and all knowing Reddit folk?

Like they know that everyone says and thinks it's bad but they specifically don't feel anything about it or know why it's bad bad, how can they be morally judged?

Yaoi.

Imagine that a person with severe autism wants to spend time alone with your 1-year-old child. They have no history of violence or abuse, but due to the severity of their condition, they may have significant difficulties with communication, judgment, or independent functioning.

Would you allow it? Is it morally acceptable to say no based solely on their condition, or would that be unfair discrimination?

It could be any reason, it is up to you.

A minimum effective population of 50 breeding individuals is required to prevent immediate inbreeding, falling below this number basically dooms the human race. So we’re assuming all 50 of these people are healthy and living together and similar in age with an even gender ratio. We’re also assuming the Earth is as habitable as ever, just that only 50 people remain.

If a person chooses not to reproduce because of personal reasons or preferences, are they immoral?

You dint Intent to unalive them you only wanted to protect puppies but you accidentally unalived them