I was responding to the “thinks all soldiers are murderers” part, not the “is a pacifist” part.
I didn’t quite say what you have in quote marks.
You think there’s a difference? There’s pacifists that think shooting or bombing someone isn’t murder?
Sure. Murder is intentional illegal killing another person. A pacifist can recognize that a soldier may have thought he was acting in self-defense, for instance. Or been misled as to the goal and need for the war, or…
Sure. We totally followed laws invading Iraq.
You really love shifting goalposts around, don’t you?
Like those “quotes” of mine you used? Nice. Forget it. I’m not getting in a lame slapfight about what a pacifist is.
you know, the US government totally broke international laws, but the individual soldiers didn’t and may have been completely unaware of that.
Right, so the deaths might be considered murder but the soldiers not murderers. That’s why Miller’s misquote isn’t cool.
For reference:
That’s an exceptionally fine hair you’re splitting there. I don’t feel particularly guilty for not realizing the specific set of conceptual hoops you were jumping through to differentiate between, “anyone you killed in Iraq was murder,” and “all soldiers are murderers.”
You’re right, “all soldiers are murderers” is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. Have a nice day.
Do you think that this:
“The deaths might be considered murder but the soldiers not murderers.”
is an obvious distinction anyone would make when they hear this?
“Anyone you [in context, a soldier] killed in Iraq was murder.”
Or do you think the most obvious meaning there is, “If a soldier killed someone in combat, that soldier is a murderer?”
Would be an interesting country if businesses and customers refused to deal with each other based on personal preferences. Funny, how courts get involved awfully quick when it’s ideologically or politically convenient.
Can we stop the threadjack? @Miller? Please? Someone?
Are you somehow under the impression that it’s illegal for business and customers to refuse to deal with each other for entirely personal reasons? Because you’d be incorrect on that score.
Look, a therapist, prostitute, or some other form of intimate service is likely to be subject to more discrimination than let’s say choosing a florist. However, the ridiculous and irrational language used to describe differences in politics is leading to the possibility of serious sectarian conflicts.
What are your thoughts on that?
Sociopolitical views ARE an issue when it comes to therapy for certain issues. I wouldn’t ask specifically if the therapist supported Trump, but I’d probably ask his or her views on specific topics to see if they skew conservative. If I need a therapist due to PTSD from a sexual assault, I’m not going to employ a therapist whose views are likely to blame the victim, as is so often the case with conservatives. I’m not going to employ a therapist who believes women should obey their husbands if I need to talk about my abusive ex. No matter how professional the therapist, their views tend to color how they interpret certain issues.
Of course, I might not need to ask those questions if I’ve gone to the therapist’s website or checked out their social media presence.
It’s understandable to a degree. But, if we are going to exclude folks from earning a living, even if they are highly competent in their field, because of ideological differences ugliness is likely to ensue. Historically speaking religious differences were used to justify ostracism and violence. The language coming predominantly from the virtue signaling left has clear parallels to the language of religious intolerance and persecution.
You can reject a therapist for any reason or no reason at all. Therapy is deeply personal and it’s important to pick someone you feel comfortable with. Even protected classes don’t apply here. Why people are making inane comparisons to shop clerks selling them a soda is beyond me.