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.
i think i’ve more than substantiated the point
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.
How have you done that?
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.
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.