That’s your response after my detailing the difference between us and Hamas when it comes to killing civilians?
I don’t believe you’re this stupid or that your reading comprehension is that bad.
I think you just can’t actually justify your position of “never under any circumstances attack protected buildings” because you’re smart enough to know the practical outcome.
That said, it’s not really worth continuing with someone who won’t admit this or detail exactly what morally superior armies ought to do in those situations. Unless it’s to roll over and die because that’s the logical conclusion if you can’t explain further.
Anyway, I think I got what I needed when you claimed purposeful targeting and killing civilians was no morally different than accidental civilian deaths.
When asked directly you gave a non answer. Care to clarify?
What does materialism tell you about the likelihood of reoffending in the case of someone who kills civilians on purpose vs those who do so by accident?
Readers should ask themselves, is it morally wrong to accidentally step on someone’s toe? Conversely, is it morally wrong to purposefully step on someone’s toe?
The answer seems clear and I don’t have to link to Wikipedia and hand waive to get there.
The justice system is far from perfect but something it does correctly is differentiate purposeful killing from accidental.
That’s your response after my detailing the difference between us and Hamas when it comes to killing civilians?
I don’t believe you’re this stupid or that your reading comprehension is that bad.
I think you just can’t actually justify your position of “never under any circumstances attack protected buildings” because you’re smart enough to know the practical outcome.
That said, it’s not really worth continuing with someone who won’t admit this or detail exactly what morally superior armies ought to do in those situations. Unless it’s to roll over and die because that’s the logical conclusion if you can’t explain further.
There is no such thing. You can’t see the forest for the trees. I want a world where military action is the last resort and limited.
You’re necessarily arguing that the purposeful targeting and killing of civilians is no worse morally than the accidental killing of civilians.
Do I have that right?
I’m arguing that both are immoral.
Then it sounds like you’re arguing no person or country ought to defend themselves for fear of collateral damage.
Does that sound right?
No, every person or group has a human right to self defense.
Which runs the risk of collateral damage.
Anyway, I think I got what I needed when you claimed purposeful targeting and killing civilians was no morally different than accidental civilian deaths.
I think you might be unreachable.
I never said that. And I am reachable, you just have to understand material philosophy to get there.
When asked directly you gave a non answer. Care to clarify?
What does materialism tell you about the likelihood of reoffending in the case of someone who kills civilians on purpose vs those who do so by accident?
Readers should ask themselves, is it morally wrong to accidentally step on someone’s toe? Conversely, is it morally wrong to purposefully step on someone’s toe?
The answer seems clear and I don’t have to link to Wikipedia and hand waive to get there.
The justice system is far from perfect but something it does correctly is differentiate purposeful killing from accidental.