re: #255 Obdicut
You didn’t just say it was just. You said it was lawful and just.
And I’m sorry, but all law may be a compromise, but it’s still what defines what is ‘lawful’.
If you say that the killing is just, I have no problem with it. But if you claim it’s lawful, you need to be able to show the law.
And that is not sophistry. You cannot open a semantic argument and then reject further semantics.
The thing is I was never making a legal argument as much as a moral one. This is why I find your objection bizarre.
I am not playing semantics at all. I rather laid out clearly the conflicting moral imperatives in the situation and what I thought ought to be done.