2 ms·
> These kinds of arguments are prima facie disgusting and deserve no quarter in civilized discourse. Declaring "no quarter" in actual war is saying that if the
by fennecfoxen 6y ago
> These kinds of arguments are prima facie disgusting and deserve no quarter in civilized discourse.
Declaring "no quarter" in actual war is saying that if the enemy decides to surrender to you, and lays down his arms, and hoists the white flag, sticks his hands in the air, then you will shoot and kill him.
Declaring "no quarter" in actual war is therefore a violation of the Hague convention. It is "especially forbidden," in the same paragraph as poisoned weapons.
You are defending your actions with a metaphor that celebrates war crimes.
Hands up don't shoot, sir.
- ThrowawayR2 6y agoI also found the "no quarter" phrasing interesting by the parent poster. As countless people have found out across history, those who show no mercy will in turn receive no mercy when they need it. If pushback against the intolerant aspects of progressivism is occurring even on HN (of all places!), they may need that mercy sooner than they think.
- fzeroracer 6y agoIt's interesting that this is the place you decided to make an argument about 'no mercy'. Because as a rhetorical question for you using the same analogy: What do you think will happen to the police when they show no mercy? Perhaps that might explain why people find the arguments attempting to justify the extrajudicial execution of someone to be disgusting.