Reply #14: I already stated my problem with "know"

[iverglas]

Knowledge can't be proved, really, so yes, that's not a proper requirement. To prove that one has a reasonable belief, well, that's a bit of a time-honoured standard.


If I ask a question, I am kind of asking for answers to that question, not answers to some made-up question, or just random thoughts.

What I asked was this:

Authorizing the killing of a human being WHERE THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE is just barbaric and immoral and flatly contrary to every vaguely modern philosophy of human rights, in particular LIBERAL philosophy -- and EVERY SINGLE PERSON READING THIS KNOWS THAT AS WELL AS I DO.

Which is precisely why not one single person whom I have asked to identify the liberal / progressive / democratic / Democratic principle that supports their ugly blood lust and applause for impunity has ever answered that question.

Authorizing the killing of a human being where there is an alternative -- how is THAT consistent with any of those various philosophies/platforms?

You say:

It is about standing up to those who preferring to prey on individuals and destroying communities for their own profit.

That is not an answer to anything I asked.

"It" in your statement is very plainly not equal to "Authorizing the killing of a human being WHERE THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE" in my statement.



typo fixed