>> I'd prefer if you let me parse my own words.<<
Reflecting back what you understand is one way to avoid misunderstandings - I think it's the best way, personally.
What doesn't work is taking the position that your understanding is automatically correct.
In that vein, it appears to me that your argument is as follows:
1) We know in advance that sometimes civilians will be killed in wars.
2) Knowing this, we deliberately go to war.
3) Therefore, we deliberately kill civilians.
Which I will refute using the reductio ad absurdum:
1) We know in advance that there will be casualties on the highway due to accidents when motor vehicles strike other motor vehicles and/or pedestrians.
2) Knowing this, we deliberately drive our motor vehicles on the highway.
3) Therefore, motor vehicle drivers deliberately kill pedestrians and the passengers of motor vehicles.
1) We know in advance that anesthesia sometimes kills patients in surgery.
2) Knowing this, physicians deliberately operate on patients.
3) Therefore, physicians deliberately kill their patients.
1) We know in advance that chemotherapy and radiation therapy sometimes kill cancer patients.
2) Knowing this, oncologists deliberately treat cancer patients.
3) Therefore, oncologists deliberately kill cancer patients.
1) We know in advance that playing football can cause serious injuries.
2) Knowing this, football players deliberately play football.
3) Therefore, football players deliberately cause serious injuries.
1) We know that deer hunters sometimes shoot other deer hunters.
2) Knowing this, deer hunters deliberately hunt deer.
3) Therefore, deer hunters deliberatly shoot other deer hunters.
1) We knew in advance that Saddam Hussein was killing his own people.
2) Knowing this, we did nothing to stop him.
3) Therefore, we are responsible for the deaths of Saddam's people. |
