(February 26, 2015 at 9:14 pm)abaris Wrote: Yes, I get it, thank you very much. You're talking about a legal issue. But that's not in any way relevant for discussing international terrorism versus international military interventions.Are you really this obtuse? I've only explained about 5 or 6 times now that my reference to the legality is to underscore what a no-brainer this is as a moral issue.
Quote:That's why comparing it to serial killers is missing the point by a long stretch. A serial killer commits his crimes because they give him satisfaction and a feeling of power. Terrorism is a strategy, despicable as it may be.Serial killers commit pre-meditated murder indiscriminately
Terrorists commit pre-meditated murder indiscriminately
Please explain how my analogy isn't apt.
Quote:The point isn't if one act is more despicable than the other.Well, that's the point I've been addressing for the last three pages or so. Have I not been clear about that?
Quote:The point is to analyse the underlying reasoning and to come up with some valid strategy to counter it.So you want to talk about something else then, just like I've been suggesting for the last 3-4 exchanges.
Quote:Everything else is just, as I said before, jerking in front of a mirror.Well, you've been enthusiastically exchanging posts with me so what's that say about you?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
