I don't disagree at all with that way of putting it.
But your original statement, that I responded to, was made a response to a question of whether the bombing of Dresden was a terrorist act, and you stated "context is everything."
That's what I disagree with.
I think there are cases where context is irrelevant. Certain things are just plain right or wrong regardless of the context.
Maybe we're using the term context in different ways.
In the case of rape, for example, I don't care what the context is, it's wrong. Of course, that does imply a preliminary decision whether it was rape or consensual sex, and in order to define the act one must, of course, look at the circumstances of the act. But if it is in fact rape, there's no need to look at context because there is no context, IMO, that can make it not wrong.
Are we just |
