Lisnaholic |
05-24-2018 11:45 AM |
Honouring Exo's request, I think these bits of the discussion should still be ok. They are guaranteed OH and Chula free and we're not on total curfew are we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
(Post 1954514)
Kind of the point is that laws come down from places of authority and are therefore designed to define and maintain their power. Deciding that war = murder would be decidedly against their best interests. Might as well ask Ted Bundy his opinion on getting into cars with strangers.
|
^ That's one explanation, of course, but there's another one too:-
Typically, war is a matter of self-defense: one guy is trying to shoot you, so you try to shoot him first. Even in civilian life, self-defense is considered a sufficiently good motive to avoid a charge of murder, afaik. In that sense, killing someone in battle should be distinguished from murder per se.
Quote:
@Lisna - I would respond the exact same way. I am not easily put off by people being direct. A lot of the problem comes from people having trouble handling opinions they disagree with, that don't beat around the bush because feelings. I prefer the first sentence and it's quite obvious it's an opinion. Most discussions of this nature are opinion based. If anything, you should clarify when you are speaking factually, present the evidence to back up the claim, and assume everything else is opinion.
|
^ That's interesting to know, DWV, especially your preference for the first sentence. What you suggest about us labeling up our facts is something I'll take on board as they say, i.e. think about for a while, then possibly throw back into the water when no one is looking. ;)
|