True, making yourself as an example of honor or integrity. Rather than always sucking up to red flags of religion and politics personas is a better path. It's self servings first, not selfish.

As long as life feeds on life, violence and killing will continue.

@yvilletom I assumed they were referring to people.

@JeffMurray People are a form of life.

@yvilletom Yes, but not all life is people. What's your point?

@JeffMurray Killing and violence will not end while there is life.

@yvilletom Again, I thought you were referring to humans, but in that case my attempt at humor point still stands. If we reach the point where there is exactly one living organism left, killing and violence will have ended while there was life.

@JeffMurray Humor requires the violation of expectations.

In your attempt at humor:

1. what is the expectation?
2. what is the surprise?

@yvilletom

1. No one would suggest the killing of every single human life (or every single living organism) as a counter to the idiom.
2. I suggested it.

@JeffMurray Choose a different subject — not killing — for humor.

I saw Castlepaloma’s words and briefly considered doing something with them. I decided to not try.

Then I saw your attempt. I studied technology and did a career in it. Technology engages a serious part of my mind, and that part of my mind answered your comment. My mistake.

@yvilletom
Nothing is "off limits" for comedy. To say that some things should be off limits because someone or some group would be offended for instance allows for everything to be off limits because you could always find someone or some group that would be offended by it.

But aren't you the one that just said, "Humor requires the violation of expectations"? So if you're expecting people to not joke about killing, doesn't that allow for a greater opportunity for humor?

Not sure what the rest of your comment about technology was supposed to mean.

Anyway, it was an absurd answer to a proposition with an absurd premise. The fact that someone is making a claim with an absolute like that begs it to be contradicted. The bottom line is that if you kill all the killers, the killing stops. If you then claim that new killers would arise, that then make the original implied argument defunct because whatever other way to stop killings is suggested would also be invalidated by the "new killers".