one country defending itself against another because they thought they didn’t deserve to live because of their world view, sexuality or colour of skin.
You’ve since added the requirements that the invader needed to state their genocidal intention beforehand, and that both countries need to be recognized states that have some as-yet unstated time period of independence.
Since you’re constantly shifting the goalposts, it’s impossible to meet your requirements…
You’ve since added the requirements that the invader needed to state their genocidal intention beforehand, and that both countries need to be recognized states that have some as-yet unstated time period of independence.
No I haven’t?
It’s 100% possible I misunderstood the person I was replying to, I have no problem acknowledging that. I took their comment to be a question of if it’s morally correct to defend a border with a military if the invading military is doing so because they think you “don’t deserve to live because of your world view, your sexuality, your skin colour?”
If you interpret that differently then we are discussing different things and not arguing the same point.
I do think that an army/militia and and military are different. I think a military needs a state, by definition. I think the fact that the military enforces the will of a state is what makes it evil and what makes it so easy to present war as just and self defense while hiding the motive of imperialism.
Since you’re constantly shifting the goalposts, it’s impossible to meet your requirements…
For added clarity this is what I think is going on in our exchange:
My original statement was that I am not aware of a war that was started between two militaries that was one military defending it’s people from another who wanted to wipe them out for their viewpoints, sexuality, colour of their skin.
You replied saying wars result in genocide. I don’t disagree with that. That’s still not what the comment you were replying to (this one for clarity) was saying.
It is not reasonable for you to tell me what I meant the same way it’s not reasonable for me to tell you what you mean by yours.
You are expecting me to discuss your point, which is that wars result in genocide, whereas I am continuing to discuss the idea that wars start as a response to genocide.
I don’t understand why you would come into a conversation, reply telling me I am wrong and demand I defend a point I wasn’t trying to make.
I made the mistake of thinking you were raising new points to support the idea that I was wrong about what I was discussing, but I was clearly wrong about that.
You’ve since added the requirements that the invader needed to state their genocidal intention beforehand, and that both countries need to be recognized states that have some as-yet unstated time period of independence.
Since you’re constantly shifting the goalposts, it’s impossible to meet your requirements…
No I haven’t?
It’s 100% possible I misunderstood the person I was replying to, I have no problem acknowledging that. I took their comment to be a question of if it’s morally correct to defend a border with a military if the invading military is doing so because they think you “don’t deserve to live because of your world view, your sexuality, your skin colour?”
If you interpret that differently then we are discussing different things and not arguing the same point.
I do think that an army/militia and and military are different. I think a military needs a state, by definition. I think the fact that the military enforces the will of a state is what makes it evil and what makes it so easy to present war as just and self defense while hiding the motive of imperialism.
For added clarity this is what I think is going on in our exchange:
My original statement was that I am not aware of a war that was started between two militaries that was one military defending it’s people from another who wanted to wipe them out for their viewpoints, sexuality, colour of their skin.
You replied saying wars result in genocide. I don’t disagree with that. That’s still not what the comment you were replying to (this one for clarity) was saying.
It is not reasonable for you to tell me what I meant the same way it’s not reasonable for me to tell you what you mean by yours.
You are expecting me to discuss your point, which is that wars result in genocide, whereas I am continuing to discuss the idea that wars start as a response to genocide.
I don’t understand why you would come into a conversation, reply telling me I am wrong and demand I defend a point I wasn’t trying to make.
I made the mistake of thinking you were raising new points to support the idea that I was wrong about what I was discussing, but I was clearly wrong about that.