Let's try again, then

[joe-90]

In other words Mega - you aint got no answers and are reverting to abuse (as per usual).

 

[Shytalkz]

In other words Mega - you aint got no answers and are reverting to abuse (as per usual).

Hahahahaha . Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[joe-90]

Show me abuse that I've given (compared to the big sweary stuff that you proffer).

 

[Shytalkz]

Hah, I'm getting dyslexic: I thought you'd called me a poofter on first scan .

Swear words aren't the only form of abuse, ya know. (He does).

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have no intention of justifying my position on any subject to someone like you.

So in other words you can't explain what the difference is from the perspective of the victims.

You do know why that is, don't you?

 

[megawatt]

Joe-90 wrote:

In other words Mega - you aint got no answers and are reverting to abuse (as per usual).

I have said nothing abusive I have simply made a statement of fact ...

Take a look back through recent posts from BAS and tell me which part of Foul mouthed objectionable little man you don't think is factually correct.

I'm starting to think that you and BAS are actually one and the same.

MW

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have said nothing abusive I have simply made a statement of fact ...

No - you have stated your opinion.

Take a look back through recent posts from BAS and tell me which part of Foul mouthed objectionable little man you don't think is factually correct.

None of it - they are just your opinions. Other people who think the same about you as I do might well agree with everything I wrote and not find it foul or objectionable at all.

I'm starting to think that you and BAS are actually one and the same.

That's abusive.

 

[Shytalkz]

I'm starting to think that you and BAS are actually one and the same.

That's a bit harsh.


On BAS

 

[Softus]

I have no intention of justifying my position on any subject to someone like you.

So in other words you can't explain what the difference is from the perspective of the victims.

You do know why that is, don't you?

Ooh, ooh, I know I know I know:

It's because those "other words" are different words, with a different meaning.

Other people who think the same about you as I do might well agree with everything I wrote and not find it foul or objectionable at all.

And yet there are plenty of other people who agree with your point of view (on the death penalty), but who also find your manner to be foul-mouthed and objectionable.

 

[Space cat]

What's the difference from the perspective of the victims?

The answer of course is none. They're dead either way. But there's more to it than that. Try these scenarios for size:

1) You've had a really bad day and, just when it couldn't get any worse, somebody jumps the queue at the supermarket checkout. So you follow them out to the car park, jump in your car and mow the little sh*t down.

2) You've had a really bad day ---- etc, etc. So you shove the little sh*t out of your way - causing them to fall over and crack their skull on a tin of baked beans.

The queue jumper is dead either way but there's a very clear difference between murder (1) and manslaughter (2). It's all about intent. Now try these:

1) You're an RAF pilot who's been sent to bomb a legitimate military target but the information was wrong and you wipe out a civilian air raid shelter.

2) You call yourself a freedom fighter but you don't fancy your chances attacking a military target - they might just fire back at you - so you blow up a nightclub on the other side of the planet.

What's the difference from the perspective of the victims? None whatsoever - but there's a very clear difference between those two acts of mass killing; it's all about intent.

PS: I will concede that, during World War II, deliberate attacks on civilian targets happened and we were as guilty as anybody.

 

[megawatt]

Following ... I'm starting to think that Joe-90 and BAS are actually one and the same.

BAS wrote:

That's abusive.

Yes, I apologise, nobody deserves that

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Apology accepted....

2) You've had a really bad day ---- etc, etc. So you shove the little sh*t out of your way - causing them to fall over and crack their skull on a tin of baked beans.

The queue jumper is dead either way but there's a very clear difference between murder (1) and manslaughter (2). It's all about intent.

And what if it was proved in court that no matter what you claimed your intentions were you actually knew full well that when you pushed him over he would crack his head on a tin of beans and would die? Is "I didn't want to kill him but I pushed him over knowing that it would kill him" a workable defence?

1) You're an RAF pilot who's been sent to bomb a legitimate military target but the information was wrong and you wipe out a civilian air raid shelter.

You're an RAF pilot who has been sent to destroy the infrastructure in a densely populated city (bridges, power stations, water purification plants, railway tracks etc) because they have been declared "legitimate" military targets as part of a "legitimate" military campaign to demoralise the population.

You know that when you do that civilians will die, and civilians will be maimed. You know that people will be orphaned and widowed and left in pain and deprivation for the rest of their lives. You know that this will happen both directly as a result of your bombs and indirectly because of the consequences - e.g. you know that babies will die in hospitals because there is no power for their incubators.

What's the difference from the perspective of the victims? None whatsoever - but there's a very clear difference between those two acts of mass killing; it's all about intent.

Oh well I'm sure that the father picking through the wreckage of the bus looking for his daughter's right leg will feel much better about it because of the intent of the person who delivered the bomb.

PS: I will concede that, during World War II, deliberate attacks on civilian targets happened and we were as guilty as anybody.

It didn't stop at the end of WWII for us, or for anybody.

 

[solo]

You're an RAF pilot who has been sent to destroy the infrastructure in a densely populated city (bridges, power stations, water purification plants, railway tracks etc) because they have been declared "legitimate" military targets as part of a "legitimate" military campaign to demoralise the population.

You know that when you do that civilians will die, and civilians will be maimed. You know that people will be orphaned and widowed and left in pain and deprivation for the rest of their lives. You know that this will happen both directly as a result of your bombs and indirectly because of the consequences - e.g. you know that babies will die in hospitals because there is no power for their incubators.

It's good to know that we have guys like these defending our country. I take my hat off to them. They do a difficult job and have to live with the consequences of their actions. They can accidentally bomb the bus that my kids are on any day.

 

[Space cat]

And what if it was proved in court that no matter what you claimed your intentions were you actually knew full well that when you pushed him over he would crack his head on a tin of beans and would die?

If the prosecution can prove intent then it's murder. No argument there.

You're an RAF pilot who has been sent to destroy the infrastructure in a densely populated city (bridges, power stations, water purification plants, railway tracks etc) because they have been declared "legitimate" military targets as part of a "legitimate" military campaign to demoralise the population.

That's a fair point; but if you want to blame somebody for wars blame politicians, not the poor pilot. Lots of soldiers, sailors and airmen die in wars.

Edit: Solo beat me to it.

Oh well I'm sure that the father picking through the wreckage of the bus looking for his daughter's right leg will feel much better about it because of the intent of the person who delivered the bomb.

You said it yourself: "What's the difference from the perspective of the victims?" and I agree; there is none. But he might come to accept that his daughter paid the price for his leaders' arrogance and stupidity.

It didn't stop at the end of WWII for us, or for anybody.

Sadly, that is true.

 

[joe-90]

They can accidentally bomb the bus that my kids are on any day.

Yeah, mine too. Kids are a pain in the butt.