![Nazi lives DO matter according to the mods of [email protected]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c2cd108d-170e-429d-bb92-f6f2bbf6bf4a.jpeg){kind=link}
Not really “powertripping”. Just pathetic. Consider this a notice to avoid feddit.org… I’ve unsubbed and blocked the instance.
We can’t dehumanize fascists for their choice to dehumanize everyone for things outside their control though, because that would be mean, and hurt their sociopath feefees!
Europe stool idly by throughout the 1930’s “tolerating” fascism, and the Nazi’s killed over 100 million people. Don’t make the same mistake as the radical centrists of history. Fascists will not afford you the same tolerance or courtesy.
That is a very strange and self-contradicting hill to die on.
That follows very clearly from the declaration of human rights and international humanitarian law. It’s not contradictory at all.
Firstly, citation? because as i understand it “killing is morally acceptable in war” isn’t in the universal declaration of human rights.
Secondly, even if it was, there is no magic attribute of those declarations that makes them immune to contradiction.
Rights need to balanced against each other in practice of course.
You can find that in international humanitarian law.
So contradiction is possible as i have said and balance would require contextual interpretation, in practice.
Absolute statements such as :
and
Can be contradictory, depending on context.
I wasn’t challenging your interpretation, though i do think it’s naive and idealistic to the point of impracticality, i was pointing out that your statements could be considered contradictory.
While I’m at it, i missed a false dichotomy as well :
Those things are not mutually exclusive.
That’s a large amount of text to sift through, if you could give me a hint to where it specifies moral authority before and after an official declaration of war i’d appreciate it.
Seems we agree mostly.
A formal declaration of war isn’t necessary for international humanitarian law (IHL) to apply. Geneva Convention article 2
Declaring wars has fallen out of practice since the foundation of the UN, whose Charta makes wars of Agression illegal. IHL, e.g. Geneva Conventions, also applies to non international armed conflicts.
The best resource to learn about IHL is the database of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
I saw the parts about the declaration of war, i was specifically looking for the part from which you pulled :
You are right, that this is overly condensed and can be misunderstood.
Killing isn’t universally allowed in warfare either. As in you can‘t kill prisoners of war or civilians for example.
Let’s put it in another way. Killing is the last resort, when milder actions fail.
Let’s say your goal is to keep Nazis from gaining power. There are lots of things you can and should do besides mass murder. It’s an ideology after all and people’s minds can be changed.
Sure, when you reach a point that you don’t have better options to achieve the desired goal (for whatever metric you define as ‘better’) then killing is on the table by the sounds of it.
All we need now is an agreement on the threshold.
I’m assuming you’ll concede that individual killing comes before mass killing, in the hierarchy of options.
So, once this threshold is reached then, according to your logic, you are morally allowed to kill in defence ( and i assume pre-emptive defence, given the “They are won by stopping the enemy‘s ability to act.” statement ).
So going back to your original statement, it’s entirely possible to kill an individual and still believe in your definition of ‘believe in universal human rights.’ ?
Provided the correct conditions are met, ofc.