your argument necessitates finding conduct like that acceptable if it occurs, whether you believe that or not. you already think it’s acceptable to use bombs that are widely regarded as unlawful and criminal and which disproportionately kill civilians because the threat is existential—how is it suddenly beyond the pale in such circumstances under your premises to execute Russian soldiers (the people literally fighting to end Ukraine’s existence)? and mind you, i’m also not the one who just said “War sucks, people, including civilians, die.” in response to someone objecting to the use of cluster munitions on the very basis that they will kill innocent people. if you’re not understanding why someone would say you’re passively or actively fine with Ukraine killing non-combatants, i’m not entirely sure what to say.
your argument necessitates finding conduct like that acceptable if it occurs
It really does not and you’ve completely misrepresented that poster’s argument. You can try to make the argument that their claim and executing POWs can be linked, but I think it’s absolutely ridiculous. Support your opinion, or try to make a logical connection, if you like. At the moment, you’re just putting words in someone else’s mouth.
Support your opinion, or try to make a logical connection, if you like. At the moment, you’re just putting words in someone else’s mouth.
i think i’ve more than substantiated the point—it seems pretty clear to me that the poster just refuses to bite the bullet because they recognize biting said bullet would cast them as kind of psychotic. as with them: it’s not “putting words in their mouth” because you don’t like the conclusion of your own logic.
How have you done that? You’ve equated “there is a rationale for using cluster bombs” with “support executing POWs”. These are not comparable and have extremely different impacts. War is not black and white and things that are bad are not all the same level of bad.
For the record, I don’t support the use of cluster bombs and think it was a bad move by the U.S. to supply them.
i can’t walk you to a conclusion you don’t want to come to, sorry; i’ve more than elaborated at length here and my point is being pretty clearly understood by many people reading this thread so i see no need to spend another 8 replies doing this
i can’t walk you to a conclusion you don’t want to come to, sorry
That’s precisely the purpose of a debate. I’m happy to read your rationale for why the two examples are equivalent, but you have not supported that statement in this thread. All you’ve said is that you’re “logically following from those quotes”. I don’t see the logic you followed, and neither does the OP who vehemently disagrees with your conclusion.
you have badly missed my point here: i don’t care that you personally don’t think i have substantiated the point; i think i have, and you’re not entitled to ten more posts from me to substantiate to your satisfaction the point.
No, that is NOT the issue. You said I would be first in line to defend them executing Russian soldiers. Which is absolutely false.
okay but… under your established premises, what is the distinction between using cluster bombs and this hypothetical—and why would you not be other than now recognizing how your position kind of inevitably leads to war crime apologia and not wanting to bite that bullet? arguably i’ve, under your premises, given you something more justifiable to work with because at least the hypothetical soldiers at one point were combatants trying to annex Ukraine. the civilians are just existing and are not guilty of anything.
No buts, this isn’t about cluster munitions anymore. This is about your conduct here.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Stop setting up straw men to tear down. It’s not acceptable for normal users, it’s not acceptable for moderators.
under your established premises
You clearly do not understand my premise if you think the accidental and tragic death of civilians from a unexploded ordinance is the same as executing POWs. I don’t even know how to respond, there is a clear difference.
…
Using cluster munitions has consequences, not using them also has consequences. This is a trolley problem with 2 shitty outcomes. However the people who have the most information, the most to gain, the most to loose, and have to deal with the ongoing consequences believe that adding cluster munitions to the arsenal is the best option. They have weighed the consequences of using them against not using them and they’re going to use them.
…
I have been nothing but polite and arguing in good faith. You have not. Be(e) nice, Be(e) Better.
Using cluster munitions has consequences, not using them also has consequences. This is a trolley problem with 2 shitty outcomes. However the people who have the most information, the most to gain, the most to loose, and have to deal with the ongoing consequences believe that adding cluster munitions to the arsenal is the best option. They have weighed the consequences of using them against not using them and they’re going to use them.
you’ve spent a bunch of time complaining that i’m being uncharitable to you (even though i’m using direct quotes from you and logically following from those quotes) and you’re again demonstrating what i mean here in different words. if they weigh the best option is to begin executing Russian soldiers—a thing they could do at any time and which under your premises you have no way of calling unjustified—how can your position here be anything but explicitly in favor of that? your position here outsources the entirety of itself to what Ukraine thinks should be done, and leaves no outs for what you think isn’t moral if Ukraine starts doing such things!
your argument necessitates finding conduct like that acceptable if it occurs, whether you believe that or not. you already think it’s acceptable to use bombs that are widely regarded as unlawful and criminal and which disproportionately kill civilians because the threat is existential—how is it suddenly beyond the pale in such circumstances under your premises to execute Russian soldiers (the people literally fighting to end Ukraine’s existence)? and mind you, i’m also not the one who just said “War sucks, people, including civilians, die.” in response to someone objecting to the use of cluster munitions on the very basis that they will kill innocent people. if you’re not understanding why someone would say you’re passively or actively fine with Ukraine killing non-combatants, i’m not entirely sure what to say.
It really does not and you’ve completely misrepresented that poster’s argument. You can try to make the argument that their claim and executing POWs can be linked, but I think it’s absolutely ridiculous. Support your opinion, or try to make a logical connection, if you like. At the moment, you’re just putting words in someone else’s mouth.
i think i’ve more than substantiated the point—it seems pretty clear to me that the poster just refuses to bite the bullet because they recognize biting said bullet would cast them as kind of psychotic. as with them: it’s not “putting words in their mouth” because you don’t like the conclusion of your own logic.
How have you done that? You’ve equated “there is a rationale for using cluster bombs” with “support executing POWs”. These are not comparable and have extremely different impacts. War is not black and white and things that are bad are not all the same level of bad.
For the record, I don’t support the use of cluster bombs and think it was a bad move by the U.S. to supply them.
i can’t walk you to a conclusion you don’t want to come to, sorry; i’ve more than elaborated at length here and my point is being pretty clearly understood by many people reading this thread so i see no need to spend another 8 replies doing this
That’s precisely the purpose of a debate. I’m happy to read your rationale for why the two examples are equivalent, but you have not supported that statement in this thread. All you’ve said is that you’re “logically following from those quotes”. I don’t see the logic you followed, and neither does the OP who vehemently disagrees with your conclusion.
you have badly missed my point here: i don’t care that you personally don’t think i have substantiated the point; i think i have, and you’re not entitled to ten more posts from me to substantiate to your satisfaction the point.
No, that is NOT the issue. You said I would be first in line to defend them executing Russian soldiers. Which is absolutely false.
Don’t put words in my mouth.
okay but… under your established premises, what is the distinction between using cluster bombs and this hypothetical—and why would you not be other than now recognizing how your position kind of inevitably leads to war crime apologia and not wanting to bite that bullet? arguably i’ve, under your premises, given you something more justifiable to work with because at least the hypothetical soldiers at one point were combatants trying to annex Ukraine. the civilians are just existing and are not guilty of anything.
No buts, this isn’t about cluster munitions anymore. This is about your conduct here.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Stop setting up straw men to tear down. It’s not acceptable for normal users, it’s not acceptable for moderators.
You clearly do not understand my premise if you think the accidental and tragic death of civilians from a unexploded ordinance is the same as executing POWs. I don’t even know how to respond, there is a clear difference.
…
Using cluster munitions has consequences, not using them also has consequences. This is a trolley problem with 2 shitty outcomes. However the people who have the most information, the most to gain, the most to loose, and have to deal with the ongoing consequences believe that adding cluster munitions to the arsenal is the best option. They have weighed the consequences of using them against not using them and they’re going to use them.
…
I have been nothing but polite and arguing in good faith. You have not. Be(e) nice, Be(e) Better.
you’ve spent a bunch of time complaining that i’m being uncharitable to you (even though i’m using direct quotes from you and logically following from those quotes) and you’re again demonstrating what i mean here in different words. if they weigh the best option is to begin executing Russian soldiers—a thing they could do at any time and which under your premises you have no way of calling unjustified—how can your position here be anything but explicitly in favor of that? your position here outsources the entirety of itself to what Ukraine thinks should be done, and leaves no outs for what you think isn’t moral if Ukraine starts doing such things!
Because you are.
I. Do. Not. Support. Ukraine. Executing. POWs. Full. Stop.
I’m done, you’re arguing in bad faith, and clearly have no intention of stopping.