All this does is push the semantic ambiguity onto words like "harm" and "impose." Which, uh, have been made substantially more ambiguous recently than they were in the past.
But when you say the "peace treaty" does not apply - that sounds like war footing. It sounds like someone to whom ordinary, fundamental moral considerations do not apply. So I am suspicious that it is you who are motte and bailying between "violently suppress" and "shun"
-
-
A reasonable suspicion induced by the choice of terminology in the article, and one of its weaknesses. No, I do not support preemptive uses of force. And I don't equate speech with a use of force, as I've seen others do.
-
This article is talking about a "peace treaty" that prevents us from being "at each others' throats." It's clearly about violence, not about imposing social costs/shunning.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.