|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wintermute
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| wintermute wrote: |
[q
I agree that these killings were unjustifiable and counterproductive, if in fact they were the kind of settlers who just want to go about their own lives without molestation, and respect that right in others. They seem to be just ordinary people going about their business. If they were four armed settlers cruising around looking for people to shoot, I would feel differently.
You make a distinction between attacking "civilian" and military targets, implying one is less bad than the other, and I agree with that concept.
I disagree with your cut and dry definition of a civilian. SOME of the settlers could fit into the category of "members of a civilian militia", or "criminals". ANYONE who takes up a gun, figuratively speaking, with the intention of causing harm to another, gives up their right to be free of molestation, their "civilian" status. Likewise, using violence and intimidation to take control of someone else's land is an aggressive criminal activity that, again, amounts to a voluntary relinquishing of "non-combatant" status.
Israel itself takes a very nuanced view on exactly who is a combatant and who is not - I'm not sure why you think a black and white view is an appropriate way to look at the situation. |
Did you even bother checking Google for the situation in question before throwing out hypothetical situations in a desperate attempt to excuse Hamas?
Apparently the settlers were just simply driving in a car. One was a pregnant woman...I'm fairly sure that the settlers don't take along pregnant women if their goal is to use violence and intimidation.
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=679333
Hamas praised the people who committed this act. Contrast that with the not ONE but TWO investigations of the Israeli captain. It seems fairly clear that Israel consistently holds itself to a higher standard than Hamas just as it seems fairly clear that the only standard certain people will accept is Israel ceasing to exist at all. |
You apparently didn't read too closely. I bolded the relevant sentences above.
Just in case anyone else is anxious to invent their own interpretation, let me clarify:
I agree that these killings were wrong. I disagree with Fox's general definition of who is a "civilian", which most of my post addressed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wintermute wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| wintermute wrote: |
[q
I agree that these killings were unjustifiable and counterproductive, if in fact they were the kind of settlers who just want to go about their own lives without molestation, and respect that right in others. They seem to be just ordinary people going about their business. If they were four armed settlers cruising around looking for people to shoot, I would feel differently.
You make a distinction between attacking "civilian" and military targets, implying one is less bad than the other, and I agree with that concept.
I disagree with your cut and dry definition of a civilian. SOME of the settlers could fit into the category of "members of a civilian militia", or "criminals". ANYONE who takes up a gun, figuratively speaking, with the intention of causing harm to another, gives up their right to be free of molestation, their "civilian" status. Likewise, using violence and intimidation to take control of someone else's land is an aggressive criminal activity that, again, amounts to a voluntary relinquishing of "non-combatant" status.
Israel itself takes a very nuanced view on exactly who is a combatant and who is not - I'm not sure why you think a black and white view is an appropriate way to look at the situation. |
Did you even bother checking Google for the situation in question before throwing out hypothetical situations in a desperate attempt to excuse Hamas?
Apparently the settlers were just simply driving in a car. One was a pregnant woman...I'm fairly sure that the settlers don't take along pregnant women if their goal is to use violence and intimidation.
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=679333
Hamas praised the people who committed this act. Contrast that with the not ONE but TWO investigations of the Israeli captain. It seems fairly clear that Israel consistently holds itself to a higher standard than Hamas just as it seems fairly clear that the only standard certain people will accept is Israel ceasing to exist at all. |
You apparently didn't read too closely. I bolded the relevant sentences above.
Just in case anyone else is anxious to invent their own interpretation, let me clarify:
I agree that these killings were wrong. I disagree with Fox's general definition of who is a "civilian", which most of my post addressed. |
No you didn't. You bolded PART of the relevant sentence. Here's what you said. "I agree that these killings were unjustifiable and counterproductive if in fact they were the kind of settlers who just want to go about their own lives without molestation and respect that right in others."
As the link shows they WERE going about their own lives. So how do you feel about this particular situation?
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| That being said to kill a settler is strategically different than to kill a civilian. |
So what? That doesn't make it more okay, and as such, that fact is completely irrelevant to this conversation, which last I checked isn't about whether any of these civilian murders on either side of the conflict had strategic value. Even bringing it up is completely perplexing. |
Yeah, I got of topic. I'm not particularly interested in discussing the morality of killing people because the answer is so obvious. I was thinking about the upcoming peace talks, and about how Hamas had been frozen out. Also about the upcoming end to the settlement moratorium, and how if it isn't extended than Netanyahu is going to be, at least partially, responsible for more blood shed.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| A civilian is not always a civilian in the sense that if they are trespassers they become something else. |
No, this is rubbish. A civilian is a civilian so long as they aren't actively serving in a military or police organization. That's what a civilian is. The fact that you're trying to change the definitions of words to defend Hamas here says a lot (and yes, for all your "no one deserves to die" rhetoric, you're still defending them).
| Leon wrote: |
| If they are illegal settlers then they are trespassers and there situation is not so cut and dry. |
Yes it is cut and dry: they are civilians, and killing them isn't okay. See how cut and dry that is? It's only when you have a political commitment to attack Israel and defend Hamas that you are forced to attempt to construe it as more complex. |
If someone is considered a trespasser and they refuse to leave your land than legally you can shoot them. If Israelis set up illegal settlements on Palestinian land I'm not saying they should shoot them, but that they don't have many options. Also most civilians do not have stockpiles of military grade weaponry, but most settlers do.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Lastly Fox, what do you propose the Palestinians do? What should their strategy be? |
Palestinian stands precisely zero chance of a military victory against Israel. Indeed, the only reason Palestine continues to exist as a territory at all is because of Israeli forbearance. As such, first I'll tell you what I wouldn't do: go around killing Israeli civilians. It can't possibly achieve my goal, and as such, it's pure, unmitigated evil. |
Actually as a strategy asymmetrical warfare can be very strong. Neither side wants to destroy the other, at least realistically, as far as goals go. Both sides want to be in positions of relative strength when the eventual deal goes down. It's not Israeli forbearance, but rather American and International pressure that keeps Palestine intact.
| Fox wrote: |
This goes a bit beyond the scope of the thread, but I think we can briefly indulge it. From a Palestinian perspective, my strategy would focus 0% on killing and 100% on getting international opinion on my side. Things like killing Israeli civilians, committing terrorist acts, or launching rockets only works against Palestinian goals. They make people say things like this:
| Man of Street wrote: |
| I never focus on this stuff because I grew up among American WASPs and found that both sides just kill each other a lot. |
The world is far more likely to stand up for a Palestine that embraces its helplessness against Israel than one that tries to fight back (and in ways the global community generally condemns, no less), and world opinion is the only hope Palestinians have of achieving their objective. Perhaps that doesn't sound like much, but the Palestinian people are in a pathetic state; that's the best they can do. It may or may not be effective, but killing civilians certainly won't help, and as such, it should be avoided. |
Israel isn't very concerned about International opinion. The only country that it will change its actions for is America, and that is only to a point. Relying on International pressure, especially from the UN, would be a foolish strategy. Israel kills just as many civilians.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Should they capitulate to the demands of Israel? |
Depends on the demand. If you list individual demands you'd like me to address, I'd be happy to list how I feel they should be responded to.
| Leon wrote: |
| If they feel they are abused by Israel what should there recourse be? |
Here are their two choices:
1) Don't respond with force, take it to the court of international politics and possibly see things turn a bit in their favor as a result of such abuses as a result of international pressures.
2) Kill Israeli civilians in response, and make it look like the tit-for-tat that makes this issue more ambiguous in many people's eyes that it otherwise might be.
I think it's obvious which is better.
| Leon wrote: |
| Should the killing done by the IDF be sanctioned by their uniforms and State backing, are they more legitimate arbitrators of force than Palestinians? |
Just as with Palestinians, killing done by the IDF is acceptable (and I use that word grudgingly, given my stance on the military in general) only insofar as it involves legitimate military targets. When the IDF needlessly kills a civilian, it's just as bad. And if you were to ask me what my strategy would be as the Israeli government, I assure you, avoiding civilian casualties would be a priority.
| Leon wrote: |
| Imagine the response if Palestinians tried to settle in Israeli territory? |
As I imagine it, I imagine damning without qualification any military forces that gunned them down for doing so. Killing civilians isn't okay.
| Leon wrote: |
| Is it more moral to resist an oppressive force, and have civilians die, for statehood, or is it more moral to give up freedom and capitulate to an oppressive force? I'm not sure myself. |
Resisting an oppressive force can be done without killing civilians. There are different types of resistance, and unarmed resistance is the wisest course for the Palestinians to take. Armed resistance in the form of killing unarmed civilians, on the other hand, is just about the stupidest thing they could do. This isn't a question about whether they should simply "give up". It's a question of what the best form for their resistance to take is. |
How much do you know about the PLO? The PLO used to be a very violent organization, now it is not. I would say that the PLO used to be more violent than Hamas is now, but that over time the organization matured and now its leader Abbas is being called a partner in peace by Netanyahu. The reason that the PLO has legitimacy in Palestine is its earlier resistance. Hamas is going through a similar transition. Before Palestine could make peace it had to resist Israel to show that it wasn't a puppet force. In the same sense because Netanayhu is considered a hawk he has more legitimacy as a peacemaker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wintermute wrote: |
| I disagree with your cut and dry definition of a civilian. SOME of the settlers could fit into the category of "members of a civilian militia", or "criminals". ANYONE who takes up a gun, figuratively speaking, with the intention of causing harm to another, gives up their right to be free of molestation, their "civilian" status. |
While I don't agree that they give up their civilian status (civilian is simply a descriptive term), I'm certainly not saying that Palestinians are in the wrong to defend themselves from anyone who is coming after them with weapons in hand. If this story had been, "Four armed settlers attacked members of Hamas, were killed in self-defense," then my sympathies would not lie with the settlers. I felt that went without saying, but for clarity there's no reason not to simply state it outright.
With regards to criminal status, however, I don't think that someone being a criminal makes it any more legitimate to simply gun them down. Unless said criminal is an immediate threat, it's no more justifiable to kill them than it is to kill a non-criminal (and if they are an immediate threat, their criminal status is irrelevant; you're acting in either self-defense, or defense of another).
| wintermute wrote: |
| Israel itself takes a very nuanced view on exactly who is a combatant and who is not - I'm not sure why you think a black and white view is an appropriate way to look at the situation. |
Because the situation almost always is black and white. People on either side who attempt to make it more nuanced are generally doing so in hopes of defending their agenda, not out of any genuine commitment to right action. There's lots of room for nuance on lots of topics, but when it comes to killing people, the situation simply isn't particularly complex. People who try to make it complex are often performing what amounts to an ethical parlor trick, hoping you'll "lose track of the ball" before they slip it off the table entirely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| If someone is considered a trespasser and they refuse to leave your land than legally you can shoot them. |
I'm not exactly sure of the specifics of the pertinent laws, but regardless, I don't support that. There have historically been plenty of completely unjust laws. Something being legal doesn't make it right; shooting someone for merely being on your property -- even if they refuse to leave -- is horrific. As such, said laws are understandably uncompelling to me as a reference.
| Leon wrote: |
| Also most civilians do not have stockpiles of military grade weaponry, but most settlers do. |
I don't care how many weapons they have. I do admittedly care what they do with them; if they start shooting at Palestinians, then Palestinians fighting back in self-defense is legitimate. If not, then the fact that they have those weapons doesn't make them a more legitimate target in my eyes.
| Leon wrote: |
| Actually as a strategy asymmetrical warfare can be very strong. Neither side wants to destroy the other, at least realistically, as far as goals go. |
Asymmetrical warfare can be very strong in certain situations, but this isn't one of them. The Israeli army is an immediate presence, very effective at what it does, and which has the entire area in question virtually (edit - excessive adjective usage) locked down. The opportunities Hamas has had to cause harm have come not because of genuinely clever tactics or military viability, but because Israel has repeatedly shown forbearance. A genuinely determined military effort by Israel could bring the situation to resolution quite quickly. International opinion is what is primarily preventing such an effort.
There is no chance of Hamas destroying Israel through asymmetrical warfare. There is no chance of Hamas causing the Israeli people to tire of their current behavior through asymmetrical warfare. Indeed, such activities only serve to enrage Israelis and make Israeli actions seem more legitimate to outsiders.
| Leon wrote: |
| Both sides want to be in positions of relative strength when the eventual deal goes down. |
And nothing the Palestinians themselves can do can put them in a position of relative strength. Only the unmeritted grace of international opinion can possibly lend strength to their cause, and killing Israeli civilians isn't conducive to that.
| Leon wrote: |
| It's not Israeli forbearance, but rather American and International pressure that keeps Palestine intact. |
Rather, international pressure is, in large part, the cause of Israeli forbearance.
| Leon wrote: |
| Israel isn't very concerned about International opinion. |
If Israel didn't care about international opinion, Leon, this situation would have resolved itself quite some time ago. Clearly, Israel cares about international opinion. As you yourself pointed out just above, it's international opinion that causes Israel's military forbearance. How you can assert that, then assert that Israel doesn't care is beyond me. Not caring about occasional speeches of condemnation and not caring about international opinion are two very different things.
| Leon wrote: |
| The only country that it will change its actions for is America, and that is only to a point. Relying on International pressure, especially from the UN, would be a foolish strategy. |
Regardless of whether you think it's foolish, it's the only remotely viable option Palestine has. For all you're talk of "asymmetrical warfare", we aren't going to be seeing a Palestinian military victory over Israel. It's just not going to happen; even thinking it might is silly and pointless. Perhaps an Arabic coalition could, hypothetically, win out if the rest of the world abstained and the United States cut Israel off, but then we are once again ultimately working in terms of international opinion, since it's the only thing that could push the rest of the world into abstaining.
| Leon wrote: |
| Israel kills just as many civilians. |
Now imagine if, instead, you could phrase that as, "Only Israel kills civilians." Suddenly those muddy ethical waters become a whole lot clearer.
| Leon wrote: |
| How much do you know about the PLO? |
When the PLO gets some final results that I, as a hypothetical Palestinian, would be happy with, I'll be willing to engage in discussion about the merits of the organization and its strategy. Until then, I'm not inclined to cheerlead for them.
Last edited by Fox on Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
[
If someone is considered a trespasser and they refuse to leave your land than legally you can shoot them. . |
Link to the relevant Israeli law? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
[
If someone is considered a trespasser and they refuse to leave your land than legally you can shoot them. . |
Link to the relevant Israeli law? |
I wasn't talking about Israeli law, I was making an analogy. Israeli law doesn't count for much in the settlements and in the Palestinian territories. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
[
If someone is considered a trespasser and they refuse to leave your land than legally you can shoot them. . |
Link to the relevant Israeli law? |
I wasn't talking about Israeli law, I was making an analogy. Israeli law doesn't count for much in the settlements and in the Palestinian territories. |
You were the one who claimed that this was legal. So if we are not talking about Israeli law how is this relevant to the topic under discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wintermute
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| wintermute wrote: |
| I disagree with your cut and dry definition of a civilian. SOME of the settlers could fit into the category of "members of a civilian militia", or "criminals". ANYONE who takes up a gun, figuratively speaking, with the intention of causing harm to another, gives up their right to be free of molestation, their "civilian" status. |
While I don't agree that they give up their civilian status (civilian is simply a descriptive term), I'm certainly not saying that Palestinians are in the wrong to defend themselves from anyone who is coming after them with weapons in hand. If this story had been, "Four armed settlers attacked members of Hamas, were killed in self-defense," then my sympathies would not lie with the settlers. I felt that went without saying, but for clarity there's no reason not to simply state it outright. |
I agree, and specifically said as much in the first paragraph.
| Fox wrote: |
| With regards to criminal status, however, I don't think that someone being a criminal makes it any more legitimate to simply gun them down. Unless said criminal is an immediate threat, it's no more justifiable to kill them than it is to kill a non-criminal (and if they are an immediate threat, their criminal status is irrelevant; you're acting in either self-defense, or defense of another). |
[I was thinking of criminal in the sense of a gang competing with other gangs for turf, and likening that to a "tribe" fighting with another "tribe" for land and resources, so to keep it relevant to the issue at hand, I'm going to use the term "combatant", which in this case includes non-military/police members.]
In this case, combatant on combatant violence is justifiable in the absence of an immediate thread, because of the perceived existential threat from the other group. Not by our universal standards of equality and justice for all, but by the standard of "I must take care of my own people by eliminating the threat from the other people". Barbaric and primitive, yes, but different from the premeditated murder of innocents.
| wintermute wrote: |
| Israel itself takes a very nuanced view on exactly who is a combatant and who is not - I'm not sure why you think a black and white view is an appropriate way to look at the situation. |
Because the situation almost always is black and white. People on either side who attempt to make it more nuanced are generally doing so in hopes of defending their agenda, not out of any genuine commitment to right action. There's lots of room for nuance on lots of topics, but when it comes to killing people, the situation simply isn't particularly complex. People who try to make it complex are often performing what amounts to an ethical parlor trick, hoping you'll "lose track of the ball" before they slip it off the table entirely.[/quote]
Your point is killing is wrong, I take it. Fine. I just don't think that's particularly useful or relevant in this context. I think it's better to take a realistic approach and say that some killing is wronger than other killing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
[
If someone is considered a trespasser and they refuse to leave your land than legally you can shoot them. . |
Link to the relevant Israeli law? |
I wasn't talking about Israeli law, I was making an analogy. Israeli law doesn't count for much in the settlements and in the Palestinian territories. |
You were the one who claimed that this was legal. So if we are not talking about Israeli law how is this relevant to the topic under discussion. |
Do you understand analogies? There is legal precedent that you can shoot trespassers, that was what I was referring too. I never claimed it was legal, legality doesn't play into this sort of thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| If someone is considered a trespasser and they refuse to leave your land than legally you can shoot them. |
I'm not exactly sure of the specifics of the pertinent laws, but regardless, I don't support that. There have historically been plenty of completely unjust laws. Something being legal doesn't make it right; shooting someone for merely being on your property -- even if they refuse to leave -- is horrific. As such, said laws are understandably uncompelling to me as a reference. |
Where is that the law? This is assuredly not the case in Anglo-American common law. Reasonable force is often allowed, but deadly force never. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wintermute wrote: |
[I was thinking of criminal in the sense of a gang competing with other gangs for turf, and likening that to a "tribe" fighting with another "tribe" for land and resources, so to keep it relevant to the issue at hand, I'm going to use the term "combatant", which in this case includes non-military/police members.]
In this case, combatant on combatant violence is justifiable in the absence of an immediate thread, because of the perceived existential threat from the other group. Not by our universal standards of equality and justice for all, but by the standard of "I must take care of my own people by eliminating the threat from the other people". Barbaric and primitive, yes, but different from the premeditated murder of innocents. |
Part of the wrongness of attacking civilians who don't pose an immediate threat is because it reinforces the very horrific, primitive conditions you're describing. At best, you're explaining why someone engaging in unethical behavior is understandable. And yes, I can understand it. None the less, it's still wrong, in part because of the barbaric, primitive conditions such behavior brings about.
| wintermute wrote: |
| Your point is killing is wrong, I take it. Fine. I just don't think that's particularly useful or relevant in this context. I think it's better to take a realistic approach and say that some killing is wronger than other killing. |
That's not quite my point. After all, given I've all ready said killing in self-defense is different than killing an individual who doesn't pose an immediate threat, how could I be saying all killing is equally wrong? Rather, my point is that the overwhelming majority of cases of civilians being killed by military combatants are an example of wrong action ("black" on the "black and white" scale, so to speak), and that parties attempting to add nuance to such situations are generally pursuing justification for their actions in hopes of furthering their political cause rather than genuinely concerning themselves with ethics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| If someone is considered a trespasser and they refuse to leave your land than legally you can shoot them. |
I'm not exactly sure of the specifics of the pertinent laws, but regardless, I don't support that. There have historically been plenty of completely unjust laws. Something being legal doesn't make it right; shooting someone for merely being on your property -- even if they refuse to leave -- is horrific. As such, said laws are understandably uncompelling to me as a reference. |
Where is that the law? This is assuredly not the case in Anglo-American common law. Reasonable force is often allowed, but deadly force never. |
If you can prove that they have criminal intent it is allowed. It isn't allowed if the person is just passing through. As to what Fox said, something being legal doesn't make it right of course. Something needs to be done about the settlements, preferably by the Israeli government, if not this will be a more common occurrence. Here's hoping that the moratorium will be extended and the peace process doesn't end like it would if settlements continue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
[
If someone is considered a trespasser and they refuse to leave your land than legally you can shoot them. . |
Link to the relevant Israeli law? |
I wasn't talking about Israeli law, I was making an analogy. Israeli law doesn't count for much in the settlements and in the Palestinian territories. |
You were the one who claimed that this was legal. So if we are not talking about Israeli law how is this relevant to the topic under discussion. |
Do you understand analogies? There is legal precedent that you can shoot trespassers, that was what I was referring too. I never claimed it was legal, legality doesn't play into this sort of thing. |
This is exactly why it is so hard to read your posts. First you claim that legally you can shoot trespassers, then you claim there is legal precedent, then you say "legality doesn't play into this sort of thing."
Seriously this makes no sense. Either it's legal and therefore legality plays into it, or it is not legal and legality doesn't. There can't be both legal precedent for it and legality having no role at all.
Now let read your quote above. You said "If someone is considered a trespasser and they refuse to leave your land than legally you can shoot them" So yes you did claim it was legal.
If there is LEGAL precedent then show that.
And you are the one who should be asking about understanding analogies. When one talks about legal matters he is discussing things as they are by law. Analogies are a completely different kettle of fish. And what analogy are you attempting to make? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wintermute
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| wintermute wrote: |
[I was thinking of criminal in the sense of a gang competing with other gangs for turf, and likening that to a "tribe" fighting with another "tribe" for land and resources, so to keep it relevant to the issue at hand, I'm going to use the term "combatant", which in this case includes non-military/police members.]
In this case, combatant on combatant violence is justifiable in the absence of an immediate thread, because of the perceived existential threat from the other group. Not by our universal standards of equality and justice for all, but by the standard of "I must take care of my own people by eliminating the threat from the other people". Barbaric and primitive, yes, but different from the premeditated murder of innocents. |
Part of the wrongness of attacking civilians who don't pose an immediate threat is because it reinforces the very horrific, primitive conditions you're describing. At best, you're explaining why someone engaging in unethical behavior is understandable. And yes, I can understand it. None the less, it's still wrong, in part because of the barbaric, primitive conditions such behavior brings about.
| wintermute wrote: |
| Your point is killing is wrong, I take it. Fine. I just don't think that's particularly useful or relevant in this context. I think it's better to take a realistic approach and say that some killing is wronger than other killing. |
That's not quite my point. After all, given I've all ready said killing in self-defense is different than killing an individual who doesn't pose an immediate threat, how could I be saying all killing is equally wrong? Rather, my point is that the overwhelming majority of cases of civilians being killed by military combatants are an example of wrong action ("black" on the "black and white" scale, so to speak), and that parties attempting to add nuance to such situations are generally pursuing justification for their actions in hopes of furthering their political cause rather than genuinely concerning themselves with ethics. |
I understand where you're coming from. Fair enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
