Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
Originally posted by Clandestine
Yes Greeny you can paint Clinton/Gore with all the right wing vitriole you can muster and belittle yourself in the process by ignoring the even more accomplished corruption and abuse of political power by the current batch of long time manipulaters which you adore so fervently.
Originally posted by Greenhat I've noticed you like Dictionary.com.
I suggest you buy a decent dictionary.
Oxford are good for British English. Webster's for American English.
Technicality - a detail meaningful only to a specialist.
Since law is obviously of interest to lawyers, I'd say it is safe to say they are the specialists in this particular field.
As for the details we've been discussing, obviously they are meaningful to you (are you a lawyer?) and to me (a soldier). I am not a specialist in this field, but the details are meaningful to me and my ilk. Therefore, not a technicality.
Have a nice day. Kindly take Logic 101 before bothering to try to make an argument.
Originally posted by carlito You're purposefully misunderstanding here.
I'm assuming that from the explanation in this post, you do accept the point I'm making, but are disagreeing on the definition of technicality, which can obviously mean different things to different people.
Originally posted by Greenhat 1)In other words, self-interest?
2)So, when one of those individuals of your race choosing to kill another, which is the more valuable?
3)And if that "another" is you?
4)Defending a nation doesn't make one a soldier.
Originally posted by Greenhat Since the militia did wear uniforms (as did most of the men who fought for the colonies, with a few exceptions who were generally hanged outright), under today's rules, they would be lawful combatants. Unfortunate that Clandestine has so little knowledge of US history. Simbelyne cannot be expected to be familiar with anything but the myths (the Continentals did not generally fight from behind trees or by ambush, they fought using the same tactics as the British Army, and both the Continental Army and the militia wore uniforms, altough those uniforms might have only consisted of a hat, a sash or a tunic...often in very bad condition).
Originally posted by Simbelyne
2) if individuals are trying to kill one another then they are still of worth as a human being.
3) Then I would kill to defend myself. But only if it was them or me.
Originally posted by Greenhat 1)Why?
2)But isn't that failing to respect their life?
Originally posted by Simbelyne 1)Because they could still contribute. You are a soldier? Do you think what you do makes you worthless as a human being?
2) Yes it is. But faced with me or him, realistically it would be him. But only as the very last resort.
Originally posted by Greenhat What about someone who can't, or won't contribute?
Originally posted by Simbelyne Your not answering my question;
You as a soldier, have to try to kill people, does that make your life worthless?