How many civilians should I be morally correct (and allowed without consequence) in killing to kill one of my "enemies"?
chat
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
officer, I wasn't aiming for you or your fellow squad-members I was aiming for the convicts in the jail connected to the police department
I have an idea for how you could start luring guys with the same height/hair color/background as your debate bro friend into a van, put them to sleep with tranquilizer, bring them back to a fortified basement and put them through a series of physical trials based on bible verses until they die and then start mailing their severed fingers to the police together with taunting letters. And here's the weird thing: it wouldn't be serial killing!
Hear me out -
We must stop men from reading Ender's Game.
I know this is beneath refutation and also has already been addressed, but if you look at the actual UN definition of genocide, it doesn't specify a necessary "special intent" like he keeps harping on. Being aware of the consequences to a population and still doing it ("Oh, let's dump industrial waste into this river, who cares if there's a reservation downstream?") is genocide. It's not like homicide where it is distinguished from manslaughter in that regard, which I assume is where he/D got that language from.
The fixation on "special intent" is funny when the pro-israel side of that debate also emphatically stated that international law doesn't mean jack fucking shit.
If I spray a room full of 25 people down with a minigun because I'm trying to kill one particular person in that room, I'm not going to only get charged with one count of murder.
Even setting that aside, this is a mistake in reasoning that's exactly parallel to the one that sovereign citizens make. Laws and legal definitions aren't magic, and they're not contracts with fantasy devils: finding a weird wording that constitutes a "loophole" is almost never going to get you off on a technicality. We reason about this stuff holistically, in context, and through reference to past cases.