Kowani wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:Lousy training is basically as bad as no training, isn't it?
And there's no indication this boy is part of a militia.
There is, however, every indication that the general is doing exactly what I said: criminally disregarding all battle protocols to make a big show of force and terrify local people into submission, seeking revenge on a child!
No matter how much you attempt to turn a child (with, as I said, poor impulse control and -- at best -- terrible training) into some wicked threat who must be stopped, the general is immoral.
Seeking revenge and killing children are immoral acts.
Morality is relative, mate.
What a nice little one-liner.
Perhaps if you'd given me more to work from I couldn't crafted a more fitting response, but here we are:
Yes, there are shades of grey in morality. Killing someone -- even a child -- who is in the process of attacking you and/or your loved ones is acceptable, if restraining them is not possible. Not pretty, certainly not something most people would be proud of or happy about. But acceptable.
Perhaps I should have been more specific in my language -- "murdering children", perhaps. Because, when there is no threat, when the person is pacified and their weapon removed, when there is no attack and they are not threatening to attack, when they are under restraint, there is no longer a question of self-defence. That kicks it back to being murder again.