{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/12/2016 10:39:10 AM
1
I just don't see the relevancy of your original statement.
English
-
You mentioned international laws which you later specified as the Geneva Conventions whilst replying to the topic at hand. If such laws are not always followed/enforced then why use them to determine what is and isn't fair when fairness is subjective? If what we view as unfair is viewed as fair by others how are we to know what is really fair? The majority may share a common opinion that which is agreed upon by them but that is still an opinion, not a fact and so saying one thing is fair while determining the other isn't doesn't necessarily mean that such notions are correct but rather just agreed upon by the majority. [spoiler]I'm just -blam!-ing around[/spoiler]
-
The Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war (POWs) and soldiers who are otherwise rendered hors de combat, or incapable of fighting. Didn't know laws based around morals that are accepted, and respected on an international level were subjective.
-
Editado por BiAtBest: 4/12/2016 11:22:15 AM[quote]Didn't know laws based around morals that are accepted, and respected on an international level were subjective.[/quote] They are indeed subjective when you consider the notion they are actually not respected by everyone in reality. On paper, yes, the Geneva Conventions are "accepted and respected" but in actuality they aren't. A small example is when my DS was instructing us on the Geneva Conventions and how they apply to certain scenarios we as soldiers would face beyond the wire. To paraphrase what he said and to save time by shortening this post up, when we walk by a suspected body of an enemy combatant, we pop that bastard an extra time real quick before we actually move to see if he/she is alive. If that person were to be alive at the time of us checking him/her we would be at the risk of being wounded/killed by that person if he/she decided to continue engaging us while our guard is down. When the dust clears and an enemy combatant is wounded and downed we're obligated to tend to that person as they are no longer seen as a combatant as far as the Geneva Conventions are concerned. Quickly putting an extra round into that person before we move to ascertain his/her status is prohibited as it's seen as unfair/unnecessary/overkill. Another example is when an Army captain back before I even enlisted had captured enemy combatants who had killed a number of his men prior to their capture. Long story short, the captain wasted them en route to where they were supposed to be held before being sent elsewhere for trial. That captain now resides in a Fort Leavenworth cell for that. Think about this for a moment. You just captured these -blam!-ing shitstains who killed your battle buddies, your friends that are your family by choice instead of birth, and you have to hand them off knowing there's a chance they might live. How pissed are you? How unfair is it that the creeps who killed your best friends might get to live? The law is the law, orders are orders, they're black and white. But just because the law exists doesn't mean that it's fair or just, only that it exists and is meant to be enforced. Life is unfair and fair at the same time depending on your perspective on the individual subject such concepts are being applied too. [spoiler]I've also been up for over 24 hours and I'm utterly loopy so...[/spoiler]
