Except... it's not the exact same thing?facepalm.
are you trolling me? I literally pointed out what the hypocrisy part is.
Which is "it is ok for me to do it, but bad when others do the exact same thing to me"
This is the textbook definition of hypocrisy.
The legal guy gives the rules, and the exceptions the rules contain.
He argues that the rules should not have the exceptions, and everyone should follow his personally preferred no-exception rules that literally no one follows, and if you don't agree you are a hypocrite.
No, he disagrees with the legal analysis that says it does have exceptions pretty much, but on moral, rather than legal grounds. I don't share his moral disagreement, i think those are fine.I said it is ok for everyone.
King Arts said he respects the fact I am not a hypocrite. Even though he disagrees with me morally.
You are the one proposing it is ok when your side does it, but bad when the other side does it.
In this case, it's international law, so it can't be indicative of what "the society" believes, because it covers multiple societies, including those who obviously disagree about such things, so it can only represent what few societies think at most.Reading comprension.
Law is not morality, I explicitly stated that I personally think this law is wrong. And that it is moral for all sides to target propagandists.
HOWEVER, law can be indicative of what society at large believes.
What society agrees with him?You explicitly claimed that no society on earth agrees with @King Arts definition of morality
^ You literally said the above to king arts in reply to him stating that morality = geneva convention.
The legal guy says international law has exception to protection of particularly extreme propagandists, that's what our disagreement was about.You are not only a hypocrite for saying it is ok for your side to break the geneva convention but a war crime when the other side does the exact same thing.
Neither you nor him could make a legal argument for why he's wrong about it, only moral ones about "but who is to interpret what constitutes bad enough".
One who thinks they are perfect as they are, neither too lose nor to strict? Good luck with that.But you are also deluded if you think that no society in existence believes that the rules of the geneva convention are representatives of morality.
Though certainly not his personally favored modification of these rules.