Morgana Tsukiyo wrote:
That´s kinda the thing. "Believe" but don´t practice. So it´s just words in the wind and then a lot of rationalizaiton to justify it, like every point you made after number 1.
People do what they do, i´m not judging. Just find it interesting to see the mental contortionism that people perform to avoid admiting such a clear thing.
Out of idle curiosity, which points do you think are rationalizations? You said 'every' point after (1) is a rationalization, so:
Do you think 'killing is bad, but killing to stop someone from killing is less bad' is a rationalization?
Do you think groups of humans don't have aggregate agendas?
Do you think different groups can't
have conflicting agendas?
Do you think there is not broad agreement that it's better to resolve conflicts without killing everyone?
Do you think there is not broad agreement that people are imperfect?
How are each of these rationalizations? Additionally: which of those statements do you think people do not practice? (ie: (2) - do you believe people do not, in fact, put the belief that killing in self-defense or the defense of another is less objectionable than killing out of hand, into practice? If you believe they don't, how do you explain the legal availability of 'Self Defense' defenses in criminal prosecution?)
Also, as each of these is a relatively straightforward point, building on the previous points, what 'mental contortions' do you think are in evidence, and what do you think isn't being admitted?
We'll just start with those 5, we can get the other 4 (or 6, if we include 7a and 8a) after.