“My son is an American before Palestinian,” his grieving father said as he grappled with the U.S. government’s role in the violence in Gaza and the West Bank. “Americans, us, our government backs it up.”
Well, that’s another very interesting debate. Are the laws of a country what is written on the paper, or how things actually get enforced? One could say that America’s laws are (mostly) not racist, but how it gets enforced absolutely is, isn’t it?
If throwing a rock gets you shot, and society allows that to happen regularly, then that is the punishment for that crime. You can dislike it, and that society can dislike it, but it is what it is. Isn’t it?
You’re tap-dancing around the point. Killing that boy is regarded as a human rights violation and your opponent wants you to address the crime as one.
As if it would fuckin’ matter which country it was in anyway. Murder is universally banned in all countries. It’s one of the few universal morals humanity has.
Either military or some dumbass pretending to be military murdered an innocent person during a wartime situation. That 100% is a human rights violation.
If military, no doubt. Sounded to me like it was some psychopath playing dress up, not unlike the psychopaths that play dress up and kill innocent people on America’s southern border. Individuals aren’t parties to human rights compacts and treaties though.
The punishment for that crime is the one in the law on a technical level. This makes mob justice a crime, and people who murder others for no reason criminals. /:
You’re missing the point too. In fact, by your logic, genocide is legal. Laws are used to do evil things and they’re not the source of morality nor do they dictate right and wrong.
Well, that’s another very interesting debate. Are the laws of a country what is written on the paper, or how things actually get enforced? One could say that America’s laws are (mostly) not racist, but how it gets enforced absolutely is, isn’t it?
If throwing a rock gets you shot, and society allows that to happen regularly, then that is the punishment for that crime. You can dislike it, and that society can dislike it, but it is what it is. Isn’t it?
You’re tap-dancing around the point. Killing that boy is regarded as a human rights violation and your opponent wants you to address the crime as one.
As if it would fuckin’ matter which country it was in anyway. Murder is universally banned in all countries. It’s one of the few universal morals humanity has.
Human rights violation? Seems like just garden variety murder to me. Maybe manslaughter based on the imperfect self defense claim.
Either military or some dumbass pretending to be military murdered an innocent person during a wartime situation. That 100% is a human rights violation.
If military, no doubt. Sounded to me like it was some psychopath playing dress up, not unlike the psychopaths that play dress up and kill innocent people on America’s southern border. Individuals aren’t parties to human rights compacts and treaties though.
The punishment for that crime is the one in the law on a technical level. This makes mob justice a crime, and people who murder others for no reason criminals. /:
The proposed punishment is the one written in law. But if no one ever receives that punishment, then that’s not the punishment, is it?
You’re missing the point too. In fact, by your logic, genocide is legal. Laws are used to do evil things and they’re not the source of morality nor do they dictate right and wrong.
Hmmm funny how I never said that.