• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      How about you tell me where to look since I’m not your research arm?

      And, again, I asked you about children. The fact that you keep pretending I’m not just indicates you’re discussing this in bad faith.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Justifying the death of civilians implies justifying the death of children, because children are a subgroup of civilians.

        Likewise, the ICC bans “intentionally directing attacks against civilians”. They do not specify children. Do you suppose that means directing attacks against children is legal according to the ICC? Of course not, because children are a subgroup of civilians.

        Finally, I am not your research arm either. You asked me the names of relevant philosophers, I provided them. If you have follow-up questions about their ideas then I applaud your curiousity but you should probably just read what they wrote.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          I know you want to pretend that children are not a special class, but there’s a reason we treat children differently from adults and the reason that I am specifically talking about then since you are saying their deaths are justifiable.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            The death of children is not treated as a special case by the ICC or Geneva conventions. If they are nevertheless protected, then it’s not necessary to treat them as a special case.

            I understand that you prefer to treat them as a special case, but I don’t understand why you expect everyone else to share your preference.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              You need to decide whether you’re talking about philosophy or law, because you keep bouncing back and forth between the two.

              Another way you are not here in good faith.

              • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                They heavily overlap.

                If you look at that link, you’ll find that many of the philosophical concepts (“proportionality”, immorality of directly targeting civilians) are codified into law and enforced by the ICC.

                Which makes sense, the Geneva conventions were written precisely because laws at the time did not cover wartime actions that were viewed as highly immoral.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Sure. Medicine and electronics also heavily overlap. They’re in no way the same thing.

                  Now are you going to actually show a philosopher saying that it is justified to kill thousands of children in order to achieve a military objective or are you going to be honest and admit that no such philosopher, at least not one that is in any way widely-respected, would ever suggest such a disgusting idea?

                  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago
                    • Philosophers have justified killing civilians in order to achieve a military objective.

                    • Children are civilians.

                    • Therefore, philosophers have justified killing children in order to achieve a military objective.

                    By your logic, if the Geneva conventions do not mention “Palestinians” then they do not protect Palestinians.