Centrists are the worst

On the contrary all I see is extremists say any sense of restraint is betraying the cause.

You really interested in this? You've got some programming to undo. I'm in no ways perfect, but there's some shit you've been fed that's glow in the dark.

LOGIC as you call it has replaced with subjective consumption of backing facts. Would you agree with this? Or do you think that everyone you view is full of shit is just full of shit for lulz?

...

"assuming your own conclusion" in an argument is FAR different from "assuming someone you're arguing with has x viewpoint." But i guess that kind of conflation is to be expected from an intellectually dishonest cunt. lol

Logic and facts are unrelated.
As an analogy: facts are the tools and raw materials. logic is the process of making something with them.

Axioms are assumed self evident.In morality, they are the essence of what you consider to be a good or bad thing. The moral rules resulting from logic are the things which are logically result from or contradict these axioms.

And now i gotta do something. Ill be back to discuss this more.

If that's all they want from me, that's ideal.
The less they are worried about the better.

You were willing enough to quarter my opinion into a pre-concieved group. Why you'd shy from that when there is an objective right is glaring to the reader.
Incorrect on so many levels. Random thought: We've lost all semblance of the trivium and quadrivium way of approaching education at all ages. Even places that advocate and teach it don't follow it (see: searx or google if you're a faggot) We've all been fed bullshit our entire lives, shouldn't have to argue that with you but I will if need be. We've also been fed a false dichotomy, meaning that both sides play into the same goal. There are also interested, and sometimes paid, groups to enforce a way of thought online.
Is there any part of that you disagree with?
To whom?
You're a step ahead of yourself. Back up, because someone got to you. Just for shits and grins apply that statement to a subjective meaning of one of those terms.

Critical theory is the worst fucking thing to ever happen. However, it is still a reality. Thus, you are removing part of the populaces morality and forcefully imposing your own against their will. Sadly, this goes against your take. The solution is right in front of you m8.

Militant Centrists are the best group tbh

because you seemed to imply laws were arbitrary and that this was a bad thing. but i guess calling them bad would be assuming you had your own moral framework. so eh.
I didn't necessarily say we had an objective moral system nor that it would be glaringly obvious if we had one.
Perhaps "unrelated" is the wrong word. But valid logic using false premises IS STILL VALID LOGIC.
no, each moral system has a different set of goals. Now, if you're talking about the leaders manipulating the people for self interest, that's quite likely. But if you have no moral code you can't justify the notion of this being a bad thing.

whoever declares and agrees with them. clearly not everyone agrees on what these are and that's what results in different moral theories.
examples:
bentham's utilitarianism
pleasure=good, pain=bad
kant's categorical imperative
One should always act as if they are the absolute moral authority in the universe and that the rules they make are not in any way dependent on circumstance under the assumption that everyone else should follow the same rules as you.
Rand's objectivism
everyone should always act in self interest

Elaborate?
oh, so you DO have moral standards?

the issue is getting your populace to that point. This may require controlling the information they consume. Ideology can be like a virus, once the idea is out there, people will become less content with an imperfect system.

start of:
end:

How this doesn't tell you how far off base you are is telling, but I like arguing so here we go.

No. I explicitly (to me) stated that your framework was off and continue to beat my head against that same wall. We fill in gaps with what we have on hand. In your case, it's bias.
No, you continue to state that there is a "right" way to go forward. Even though you are aware we are policing morality. The problem is your lack of understanding with morality and where it comes from.
I'll ignore the ignorance you realized at the end of the post. Yes, and the both serve the same ends. "Do it for the children" applies to both banning free speech as well as pedophile from a certain morality.
Stop trying to combat that, it's the crux of the argument. You know at least enough to pretend to be afk while you look up differing moral philosophy. Now apply it to your statement that there is a "right" way to move forward.
Done.