I did: your argument that mental state and the situation surrounding the use of human shields was critical to their morality. I lampooned it.
Left with no choice? The article calls out specific uses of noncombatants as impromptu ablative shields and bomb squads, but the well equipped IDF “has no choice”?
I’m failing to find any mention of the value of life, though…
We can easily say that in a peaceful place, but it may be different for somebody who’s being shot at.
We can easily say running over children in a pickup is bad, but if you are drunk, it may be different.
Still objectively bad, even if you justify it with a state of mind argument.
Wow. Did you just compare drunk driving by choice with having one’s life endangered and completely left with no choice?
And you were preaching about the value of life? What a joke.
I did: your argument that mental state and the situation surrounding the use of human shields was critical to their morality. I lampooned it.
Left with no choice? The article calls out specific uses of noncombatants as impromptu ablative shields and bomb squads, but the well equipped IDF “has no choice”?
I’m failing to find any mention of the value of life, though…
In case I wasn’t being clear, I was refering to the Palestinians who are left with no choice but to shoot back.
deleted by creator
Using a human shield is a choice. I think they were making the point that what you said is garbage justification for using a human shield.
I was refering to the Palestinians, who had to defend themselves.
Then I think the other person and I both misunderstood. It looked like you were defending Israel’s use of human shields.
I still won’t justify using a human shield.