And you may be right. ... I see your point and it makes sense :)

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You: Hey there, Stranger! How do you feel about abortion?

Stranger: Im ok with it.

You: Through all 9 months?

Stranger: Not really..i aggree if its in the beginning though.

You: Where do you draw the line?

Stranger: If the girl decides to do it as soon as she understands shes pregnant ok.

Stranger: otherwise no

You: Are you American?

Stranger: No

Stranger: Im from Europe

Stranger: You?

You: Yeah. Do you know of the TV channel TLC?

Stranger: No, never heard of it. What is it?

You: The Learning Channel

You: They have a show called I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant.

You: It's the true stories of women who didn't find out they were pregnant *until they gave birth*.

You: In one of those cases, would it be okay to kill the newborn baby?

Stranger: How is it possible not to know until that late?

You: Beats me. I suppose if you just came off a diet and had irregular periods.

You: If the placenta is in the right position the kicks can be hard to feel.

You: Some women experience spotting in pregnancy that can be mistaken for a light period.

Stranger: Or they tried to hide it?

You: No, they had no clue they were pregnant.

You: You can Google the show if you like.

Stranger: I will.

You: It's called I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant.

Stranger: Well I guess if they found out that late, they should give the birth.

You: How come?

You: She'd be having the abortion as soon as she found out. Why should it matter if she finds out in the 9th month?

Stranger: I dont know really. It just seems wrong to me to have an abortion in the 9th month.

You: What about the 6th month?

Stranger: The best way for me is to give birth.

You: Why? Why does the age of the kid matter?

Stranger: Do you think it makes no difference?

You: No, I don't. It's wrong to kill folks no matter how old they are.

Stranger: Can the cell in the beginning of the first month be considered a folk though?

You: The word you're looking for is "zygote".

You: And yes.

You: But by the time she learns she's pregnant, the kid's already got a beating heart.

You: We all start are lives as a single cell.

You: our lives*

You: That's a basic fact of sexual reproduction.

You: The male and female gametes (the oocyte and spermatazoon) join through fertilization to create a new organism.

Stranger: So you believe our life starts at the formation of the zygote?

You: Not sure where else it would start.

You: Is the embryo not alive?

Stranger: What about the spermotozoids that fail? They bring the man`s dna too.

You: The spermatozoa that don't contribute to sexual reproduction are just that, sperm.

Stranger: Why so? Isnt the zygote just a cell then?

You: Sperm cells and egg cells are cells of the male and female respectively.

You: The zygote is a new organism, distinct from father and mother.

You: You're confusing parts with wholes.

Stranger: A life does not come into being magically when the sperm and egg cells combine.

You: No, it does not happen magically.

Stranger: Therefore why is it bad to kill the combined cell but not the separate that creates it?

You: There's a very complicated biological process that occurs called fertilization.

You: .

You: Fertilization produces a new organism.

You: That's how sexual reproduction works.

You: It's not like the sperm just enters the egg and that's it.

Stranger: So life somehow starts from there and it is not just a biochemical reaction?

You: There's several steps, and the whole process takes 12-24 hours.

You: Life itself is just bunch of biochemical reactions.

You: That's pretty much the definition of "life" and "bio".

Stranger: You didnt answer my first question though.

You: What was it?

Stranger: Why is it good to kill one of the cells before the biochemical reaction

You: Because the biochemical reaction marks the beginning of an entirely new organism.

You: The sperm and egg are just cells of the male and female respectively.

You: For example, you were never a sperm or an egg, but you were zygote.

You: The sperm was part of your father and the egg was part of your mother.

You: In sexual reproduction, genetic material from both parents is combined through fertilization.

You: Do you get me? Parts versus wholes.

Stranger: So what you say that you consider the zygote a human being.

Stranger: I see your point

Stranger: And you may be right.

You: It is no more wrong than Whjat

Stranger: than what?

You: Sorry, computer trouble.

You: I was gonna say killing a sperm or egg is no more wrong than killing an arm cell.

You: Seeing as the zygote has human parents and human DNA, and follows a human path of development, I'd have to say yes, the zygote is a member of the species H. sapiens.

Stranger: But then, when the newly formed organism`s survival is dependent on the mother`s organism, isn`t she to decide its fate?

You: Why?

Stranger: Because she is giving life to him.

You: Actually, the embryo won't implant for a few days.

You: By that point, there's more than one cell.

You: But couldn't you say the same for a later-term embryo?

You: Up until 5 months the kid can't survive on his own, and 5 months is with modern medicine.

Stranger: Yes, I guess I can. It was just a thought.

You: I see.

You: It's an interesting one, but it doesn't hold up.

You: For instance, what about conjoined twins?

You: Should one have the right to kill the other?

You: Or what about the mother of a newborn, who cannot find a family to adopt the baby?

You: She is also giving him life.

You: If she lives in a region without baby formula, the baby will even need to feed off her for a while, through breast milk.

You: But at least you know the science now. :D

Stranger: I see your point and it makes sense :)

You: Thank you.

You: It's probably because I explained myself.

You: I seem to be talking a lot xD

Stranger: :) It was an interesting topic to talk about.

You: Much more interesting than a majority of the conversations here.

You: If you know what I mean.

Stranger: I havent talked much but from the short experience I have..I know what you mean.

You: So do you have to go?

Stranger: No, I am just waiting for the World Cup to start.

You: You said "was", so I was wondering.

You: My view is that all human beings should be treated with respect and dignity, and that nobody should be allowed to kill anyone else.

You: Unless it's in self-defense. :D

You: But I'm actually stricter on killing than most people; for example, I'm a universal pacifist.

You: I don't believe in war.

Stranger: What about the chances the mother dies in labour. Wouldn`t killing the embryo be considered as self-defence? :D

Stranger: Just joking.

You: LOL

You: Yeah, the marvels of modern medicine ^^

Stranger: Depends on the war, dont you think?

Stranger: Think about self defence again.

You: But in all seriousness, if the mother's life is in danger the physician should try to save both.

You: Ah, there's the problem.

You: Give me an example of a war that would be justified.

Stranger: I live in a country that has been conquered many times, and different hordes have caused massive suffering to the native population. Wouldnt you go to war, if foreign vandals kill your family in front of you, just to take its riches?

You: How would this war be waged?

Stranger: Guerilla war, until your people is liberated?

You: I would have no problem fighting against the vandals, but an all-out war would involve suffering and death for countless innocent civilians.

You: One of my favorite quotes is from Blaise Pascal.

You: “Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him?”

Stranger: I believe that if he takes my liberty I have the right to fight for it.

You: Notice the end.

You: "though I have not quarrelled with him?”

You: If one person fights against another person, that's not war.

You: War necessarily involves many people, and involves unavoidable suffering and death for countless innocent civilians.

You: When 2 large groups fight, innocent bystanders tend to be hurt.

Stranger: Suppose, I am in the bushes with a gun and I see a foreign soldier pillaging and raping a village, populated by people of my nationality. And my own village suffered the same 1 week ago. I`ve never talked to the soldier though and I`ve never seen him before. Do I have the right to shoot him?

You: That would be okay, but I'm talking about war.

Stranger: But isn`t that war?

Stranger: How do you define war.

You: A conflict involving the organized use of arms and physical force between countries or other large-scale armed groups. The warring parties hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war.

You: You're not a large-scale armed group.

Stranger: Ok. Say the foreigners conquered the nearby town.

Stranger: We organize an army

You: Okay.

You: Keep telling the story; I've gotta run for like 20 seconds.

You: Back.

Stranger: We have lost many friends in that town, and we want to push out the foreigners.

Stranger: We get into a massive battle

Stranger: Isnt that battle justified?

You: Let's cut to the chase.

You: Who's hurt?

Stranger: A large portion of the population of the nearby town.

Stranger: As well as some foreign soldiers that died during the assault.

You: Who dies in the nearby town?

You: And whom does the battle hurt?

Stranger: What if our town is the next?

Stranger: Should we wait until it falls down too

You: Who does the battle hurt?

Stranger: or should we organize and stop it while we can?

You: Whom*

Stranger: It hurt the population of the town.

You: By "population", you mean civilians, right?

Stranger: Yes.

You: And many are killed, correct?

You: Many are wounded.

Stranger: And the battle we want to start is against the once who caused the suffering of the town.

Stranger: Yes/

Stranger: ones*

You: Let's say one of these people is names Susan Matthews.

You: She's 19 years old, and was just accepted to college.

You: She just moved out of her parents' house and is saving up for a new car with a GPS.

You: She's planning on starting a family with her boyfriend, though they don't plan on marriage for a while.

You: Her favorite color is orange and her favorite food is steak.

You: She's an upstanding citizen.

You: Yet one day she's hurt by the battle, and 2 painful months later she dies.

You: What did she do to deserve to suffer and die?

You: named*

Stranger: Which battle?

Stranger: The one we started?

You: The battle we're talking about.

Stranger: Consider this.

You: Oh, no.

You: You're not dodging my question.

You: What did she do wrong?

Stranger: I am not. She did nothing wrong.

Stranger: Now please consider this.

You: So why should she die?

Stranger: She died in vain.

You: You are arguing for Susan's death.

You: And Robert's and Kelsey's and Winslow's.

You: None of them did anything wrong.

Stranger: Please let me say my point. :)]

You: Yet you sit back and act like they mean nothing.

You: It's easy to defend war if you turn the deaths from people to statistics.

You: Now make your point.

Stranger: Some other people organized an army and came into her town. To get her car, GPS and rape her.

Stranger: Because they dont have those things.

Stranger: They dont have cars.

Stranger: Nor beautiful girls.

Stranger: So they take it by force.

You: Why don't they have cars?

You: Then that's the problem.

Stranger: Because of a series of a geopolitical events, that caused them to invade her town.

You: Then that's the problem.

Stranger: Yes it is, and things like this happen in real life. And real wars are started because of that.

You: The solution is to address said geopolitical events, and prevent them if possible.

You: Not to murder innocent people.

You: Just like the solution to unplanned pregnancy is not abortion.

Stranger: Indeed, but lets say we couldnt prevent it from happening and the war is imminent, as it occasionally happens in real life.

You: If there's not prevention, there's diplomacy.

Stranger: And diplomacy has also failed a lot of times.

You: Why?

Stranger: Because people have not reached that level yet.

You: What do you mean by that?

Stranger: Look at North Korea. Their people are suffering because of petty nationalism.

Stranger: They are so brainwashed by their leaders, that if a war is to be started, they will gladly fight in it.

You: Then we attack petty nationalism, not innocent men, women, and children.

Stranger: Yes but imagine that petty nationalism causes a war.

You: I'm against that war.

Stranger: Yes but those that are starting it are not.

Stranger: Say, they attack Seoul

Stranger: I am a south korean and im against war.

Stranger: But they rape my daughter.

Stranger: They rape my neughbours daughter.

Stranger: Wouldnt I and the neighbour be justified to kill those people that started the war?

You: I'm against rape, and I would have them prosecuted.

Stranger: Law does not work at such times.

Stranger: You cant prosecute someone when the existence of your country(meaning the law too) is not certain.

You: That's the very problem with war! Atrocities are committed with no justice.

You: If I kill an innocent man, it's murder. Add war into the picture and it's magically transformed into "collateral damage".

You: Then there's the inevitable propaganda and loss of civil liberties.

Stranger: Also, law does not mean something is right.

You: No, it doesn't.

You: That's why I oppose the laws that allow war. :P

Stranger: What if north korean law is not against rape.

Stranger: Then they will come and do it and not believe it is wrong.

You: I'm pretty sure Seoul is in South Korea.

Stranger: Have I said somewhere it is not?

You: Well, I'm pretty sure rape is illegal in South Korea.

Stranger: Suppose it is not in North Korea.

You: Well the rape happened in South Korea.

Stranger: And they invade South Korea where it is.

You: So the law in North Korea hardly matters.

Stranger: North korea does not officially recognize the existence of South Korea

You: Well the rape happened in South Korea.

You: So the recognition in North Korea hardly matters.

Stranger: Not in the eyes of North Koreans, they believe they are in their own country.

Stranger: Since they dont recognize it.

You: But the crime was committed in SK, so it'd go into SK courts.

Stranger: But SK courts do not exist for NKers. They see them illegal.

You: So?

Stranger: So they can rape, thinking they are in their own country and not doing anything illegal.

Stranger: Would I be justified to organize an army and drive them off?

You: And then they go to jail.

Stranger: How?

Stranger: They have a massive army

You: Are you saying that the South Korean justice system can't handle rapists?

Stranger: :)

Stranger: Yes, if they come in the numbers of hundreds of thousands and are heavily armed.

You: And you think that justifies murdering hundreds of innocent civilians.

You: That's where we differ.

Stranger: No, It justifies that I can fight them to protect my daughter from getting raped.

You: And I've told you already that I'm okay with that.

Stranger: And I am ok to organize an army and fight them off in a large scaled battle to protect my daughter, if thats the only efficient way I can do it.

You: If innocent civilians are murdered in the process, no.

You: But you're assuming a war to start with.

Stranger: So you would leave your daughter getting raped, if there is a chance of other civilians dying?

You: I think you're trying to present me with a false dichotomy.

You: I pick none of the above.

Stranger: Ok, Imagine the horde is invading.

Stranger: And if they come they will rape or kill your daughter

You: Why are they invading?

Stranger: I already said, petty nationalism, economic differences

You: Then we attack petty nationalism and economic differences.

Stranger: Imagine you are a software engineer.

Stranger: You are building a new operating system

Stranger: You dont care about politics

Stranger: nor economy

Stranger: You LOVE your job

Stranger: one day they invade, because politicians didnt fight economic differences

Stranger: and nationalism

You: What are you talking about? They totally did.

You: And the problems were nipped in the bud.

You: The end. ^_^

Stranger: :)

Stranger: Seriously, dont you see my point?

You: So the horde is invading.

You: I'm fine with you fighting back. I've said so at least 3 times now.

You: What I'm against is the murder of innocent civilians.

You: “Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him?”

You: If you go and you kill their civilians, you're no better.

Stranger: I see, what if I can kill the guy who is going to rape my daughter, but there is a chance to kill some civilians.

Stranger: Would you leave him be and rape your daughter?

You: What did the civilians do wrong?

Stranger: Totally nothing and they dont deserve to die.

You: So they shouldn't die.

You: Simple as that.

Stranger: So you leave him be?

You: Again, false dichotomy.

You: You're saying pick
A) Kill civilians
B) Your daughter is raped.

You: I pick C).

Stranger: Ok imagine he is in a house.

Stranger: Pointing a bazooka at your house and is ready to fire it.

Stranger: Your family is inside your house.

Stranger: You are in an airplane and have the option to bomb the house he is in, but there are some civilians in his house as well.

Stranger: What do you do?

Stranger: A) Bomb his house and kill civilians

Stranger: B)Leave him shoot and kill your family

You: C)

Stranger: Which is?

You: Land the plane and shoot him.

Stranger: You dont have the time to do that

You: Wait, what house is he in again?

Stranger: he is in a house with some civilians he has taken as hostage

Stranger: they are tied and cant move

Stranger: he is pointing a bazooka at your house where your family is in.

You: Easy.

You: I drop a stun bomb.

Stranger: What? From the airplane?

You: Yes.

Stranger: How do you do that?
:D

You: Same way you drop a regular bomb.

Stranger: Have you seen the bombs airplanes drop

Stranger: They blow up houses they dont stun

You: I assumed it was a smaller one, since it's not gonna hurt your house

Stranger: It is enough to blow up his house and not affect yours which is far away enough.

You: Okay.

You: A giant dome.

Stranger: No. There are precision targetting bombs, that are meant to wipe out targets like this.

Stranger: Imagine you can use one.

You: Why did I bring a bomb in the first place?

Stranger: You were scouting the area with a military airplane. You were conscripted since its mandatory in your country, yet you said you dont want to kill so they send you scouting.

You: If I said I didn't want to kill, why did they give me bombs?

Stranger: Military airplanes happen to have bombs. They dont take them off just for you. They told you if u dont want to kill, just dont use them, no time to take them off.

You: Why am I in the army again?

Stranger: Because conscription is mandatory in your country in wartime.

Stranger: Thats the law.

You: No it's not.

Stranger: Are you saying there are no mandatory conscriptions these days?

You: Not in my country.

Stranger: Suppose you live in a country where it is then

You: Then I can also suppose I have a giant dome to drop over the house.

You: I can suppose there's a trap door under him.

You: I can suppose anything I want.

You: I can suppose that the rocket is made of cheese.

Stranger: I am telling you the situation, you`re just running away from the inevitable. That if you were in that situation you WOULD drop the bomb. As it would anyone else seeing his family on the brink of death.

You: First of all, that first sentence uses a comma where a semicolon is required.

You: Second of all, I would not.

Stranger: :)

Stranger: English is not my native language I am sorry for that.

You: I wouldn't even be in the military to start with.

You: I'm a conscientious objector.

Stranger: But really, I told you what the situation is. You won`t be because your politicians didnt allow mandatory conscription. What if they did?

Stranger: There are countries that do that.

You: Then I'd say I was gay.

Stranger: And there are people who hate the army but they still are conscripted.

Stranger: What if you lived in the 19th century

Stranger: All males that could fight were conscripted.

You: Before Don't Ask Don't Tell the laws were stricter

Stranger: They didnt have a choice.

You: Then I'd hide.

Stranger: Live in the forest?

You: Not necessarily.

Stranger: Leave your family?

Stranger: Leave your children?

You: My family would come with.

You: There are plenty of draft dodgers.

You: And surveillance wasn't that good in the 1800s.

Stranger: You would have some trouble living all along in a conquered country.

You: You think I'd be alone?

You: You know the 1800s was also when we had the Underground Railroad, right?

Stranger: Anyway. I would kill if my family is in danger. And I would probably have pressed the button.

Stranger: Who are we?

You: Americans.

Stranger: I dont really know.

You: But I would not press that button.

You: I would press charges for murder, though.

You: And if I pressed the button, I would plead guilty to murder.

Stranger: What if you didnt know there were civilians

Stranger: And found out u killed them afterwards?

You: Then I would plead guilty to manslaughter.

Stranger: I see.

You: I don't think the context of war should make murder, rape, and so on acceptable.

Stranger: I would prefer to do that than seeing my family dying in front of my eyes.

You: That's because you're thinking emotionally, not logically.

You: The same reason you had trouble seeing the zygote as human.

Stranger: Of course I am. If I was thinking logically all the time I wouldnt be a human.

You: Haha.

You: That's some emotional thinking.

You: You'd still be a human.

You: Logically, you'd be human.

You: Emotionally, you see logic as inhuman.

Stranger: No i`ve never said that.

Stranger: I said that humans also tend to think emotionally at some point.

You: Tend to, yes. That doesn't mean that's a good thing.

Stranger: Never said being a human is good or bad. It`s just the way it is. Humans do think emotionally and logically

You: But we should strive to make decisions logically.

Stranger: Why so?

Stranger: It is our nature to think both ways.

Stranger: Why should we strive to think logically?

You: I said should, not do.

Stranger: What if I say we should think emotionally? Whats the difference.

You: If your family was held hostage and the strangers were the target, would you still press the button, if it meant killing your family?

Stranger: No.

You: There's the problem.

Stranger: Because I am a human and I will think emotionally in this situation.

Stranger: Why is it a problem?

You: Because it results bad decisions that don't make sense.

Stranger: Who decides what decisions are bad or not? Our logical thinking?

You: The same situation, with the people moved around, got 2 different responses from you.

Stranger: Of course I gave different responses. Dont you think it is normal?

You: The problem is that I see that, logically, all human beings deserve the right to live.

You: It may be normal; I'd need to do a lot of research to prove either way.

You: My emotions tend to spring from conclusions I come to logically.

Stranger: Logically I will say the same thing. Emotionally I will say my family deserves to live. Now who says whether logical is better than emotional?

You: Because

You: Because I see that, logically, all human beings deserve the right to live, my emotions tell me pushing the button is bad.

You: My emotions tend to spring from conclusions I come to logically.

You: Do your emotions not come from logic?

Stranger: Your emotions actually tend to spring from substances released by your brain.

You: Yes, and logic triggers those.

You: How do you know your family is in danger?

Stranger: Logic too, but not only.

Stranger: When you hear a sad song, sometimes it makes you sad, because it affects your brain in this way.

Stranger: Is that logic?

You: How do you know your family is in danger?

Stranger: By logic.

You: Exactly. It could be a hologram. But you logically know that holograms of such a quality have yet to be invented, and you also know you are in a war zone.

You: Wait, if you're flying above, how do you know what's in the house?

Stranger: I know my family stays there as i told them not to get out since its a war outside. I cannot be certain though.

You: I mean the other house.

You: The one the bomb would be dropped on.

Stranger: I can see the guy with the bazooka showing out of the window.

You: So just shoot him?

Stranger: How?

You: With a bullet.

Stranger: Airplanes cant shoot

Stranger: they travel with immense speed

Stranger: they are made for bombing not shooting.

Stranger: If i was in a helicopter I would.

You: So take the explosive part out of the bomb and drop it on his head

You: The bomb shell that is.

You: Why are you in a plane?

Stranger: I told you I was conscripted.

You: Why aren't you in a helicopter?

Stranger: Imagine then I can fly a plane from before the war.

Stranger: And they need people to scout the area

You: And you went in a plane, with bombs.

Stranger: Yes.

You: Just tell them you can't fly planes.

Stranger: Would you fly a plane to scout the area without bombs?

You: Yes.

You: That's one less plane that can be used to carry bombs.

Stranger: And then this information would be used by the army to bomb the enemy and civilians might die.

Stranger: You are indirectly killing civilians this way.

You: I never said I'd tell them anything.

You: I'd just fly around

Stranger: :) planes usually record everything when they scout.

You: Okay.

You: Then I'd not fly it.

Stranger: Then they will put you in prison

Stranger: For not obeying the law.

Stranger: They might even kill you as a deserter.

You: Not if I show myself to be grossly incompetent enough to not be trusted with scouting.

Stranger: They can always use manpower to help the army.

Stranger: With anything.

You: Not if I can't fly.

Stranger: Ok, you will bring water.

Stranger: To the soldiers

Stranger: Killing civilians.

You: I accidentally spill it.

Stranger: And leave a soldier die out of thirst?

You: But I'm not sure scouting ends up killing civilians; without information, they'd be bombing blind.

You: Nope.

You: Someone else does it.

Stranger: What if your accidental spill causes a death of a soldier

You: Someone else brings the water.

Stranger: But you were given the task, you failed and because of that they are left thirsty. They dont have other to bring water at that point since they didnt expected to fail

You: Then I don't sign up.

Stranger: U dont know that at the time

Stranger: they send you to brig the water

You: Then I don't sign up for water duty.

Stranger: You see.. at mandatory conscription countries, you dont sign up for anything.

You: Then I hide as a woman.

Stranger: :) where?

You: The kitchen, I don't know!

Stranger: The army checks your house to conscript you.

Stranger: So you have to leave

You: Not if I'm a girl.

Stranger: But they know in the register you are not.

Stranger: They come at your house

You: Not if I give a fake name.

Stranger: And see you dressed up like a girl.

Stranger: You didnt know you would need to give a fake up before the war.

You: So?

Stranger: So they have your real name

You: They come and ask my name and I say Susan.

You: They say "Sorry for bothering you. Have you seen Chuck?"

You: And I say he's dead.

You: Or "He went that way!"

Stranger: And you say that with a dress and a wig?

You: Yes.

Stranger: And they won`t get suspicious?

You: And fake boobs.

Stranger: Hilarious. :D

You: Yep.

You: But I suppose this imaginary country conscripts women too.

You: Right?

Stranger: Not really

You: Okay.

Stranger: I havent seen ones that do

You: Then I dress up as a lady.

You: Problem solved. ^.^

Stranger: What if the enemy bombs your house

You: I WIN

Stranger: they kill your family

Stranger: and injure you

Stranger: what do you do afterwards?

You: Who bombed my house?

Stranger: The foreign country that invaded yours.

You: Gee, that sure is specific.

You: Who bombed my house?

You: Not where are they from.

Stranger: Ok you live in Austria.

Stranger: Germany declares wars on Austria.

Stranger: And start bombing austrian houses.

Stranger: A plane bombs yours. You know it was German.

Stranger: Your family dies and injures you.

You: The kangaroos will help me. ;-o

Stranger: What do you do?

Stranger: Austria is not Australia.

You: I know.

You: I'm messing with you.

You: All I know is the nationality of the plane?

Stranger: Yes.

You: Then I can't do anything without more information.

Stranger: Then the German army comes in your town

Stranger: You see German soldiers everywhere

Stranger: Shooting at civilians.

Stranger: You see at least 30 Soldiers killing civilians.

You: Don't we have police for that?

Stranger: They spare your life.

Stranger: They outrun your army

Stranger: and police

Stranger: Because they are more and stronger.

You: They outrun my army and police but I alone can stop them?

Stranger: I`ve never said you can.

You: I didn't know I had superpowers!

You: :o

Stranger: I ask you what do you do?

You: Nothing I can do if the entirety of my nation's police and army were useless.

You: I'm not Iron Man.

Stranger: I know you are not.

You: Or am I?

Stranger: So you just stay there

Stranger: And do nothing?

You: What would you have me do?

Stranger: I dont know I ask you what would you do

You: You just said they outran THE ENTIRE ARMY AND POLICE.

You: I'm one guy.

Stranger: Exactly.

You: I can't take out an entire army.

Stranger: They allso killed your family

Stranger: and many people in your hometown.

You: Do I have a clear shot of them?

Stranger: What do you mean?

You: Are they in my line of sight?

Stranger: They are thousands.

Stranger: Some are.

Stranger: Some aren`t.

You: You just said there were 30.

Stranger: You saw 30 killing innocent civilians. Thats all you saw.

You: And they outran the police?

Stranger: Yes.

You: Where did they run to?

Stranger: They didnt run anywhere they are patroling the streets in your town.

You: So the police can handle them.

You: The police can at least get a look at them.

Stranger: What? They Invaded your town? There is no Austrian police or Army anymore.

Stranger: The germans have taken it.

You: How do I know they killed my family?

Stranger: A plane bombed your house.

Stranger: It was part of the German assault on your town.

You: So we know that it was a German plane.

Stranger: Yes.

You: It could've been another country framing Germany.

You: Do you know how cheap paint is?

Stranger: You hear on the radio that Germany declares war on Austria. You see German soldiers coming speaking German and German planes. And you believe someone is framing them?

You: I have no evidence that the people I would be shooting that can outrun the army have anything to do with the plane

Stranger: You cant be 100%, but what is the possibility that it wasnt a German plane?

You: Could've been stolen.

Stranger: And join the German airfleet?

You: Could've all been stolen.

Stranger: Why would they be helping the German soldiers then?

You: What makes you think you'd be killing the people responsible for the bombing

You: even if they are German.

Stranger: I would kill people part of an offensive action that killed my family even if they are american

You: How do you know it's the same people?

You: And what if they'd left your family alone and bombed another house instead?

You: And how does anything about what they're doing take away the right to life of the civilians?

Stranger: Well i dont know if they are the same people.

Stranger: But they had the same goal.

Stranger: The destruction of my hometown.

Stranger: Which involved the death of my family.

You: For the fourth time, I am okay with stopping them.

You: Or maybe fifth.

You: IDK

Stranger: I dont say about stopping them

Stranger: I ask what you do after they are dead.

You: After they're dead we rebuild.

Stranger: You rebuild what?

Stranger: Your house?

You: The town.

Stranger: And you will live in the country that ordered the death of your family?

You: What?

You: I thought I lived in Austria.

Stranger: The Germans conquered your country remember?

Stranger: Austria is Germany now.

You: You just said they died.

Stranger: who died?

You: The soldiers.

You: Stranger: I ask what you do after they are dead.

Stranger: I meant your family there.

You: Oh.

You: Then we find the people that did it and sue them.

Stranger: The German legislation won`t sue its soldiers.

Stranger: And you live in Germany now.

You: The UN will, and so will the Austrian courts.

Stranger: :D

Stranger: How old are you?

You: How exactly would you respond?

You: Your whole argument assumes a war in the first place.

Stranger: First of all, the UN does not have executive or legislative power over any nation in the world.

You: But they can charge for war crimes.

Stranger: Second, the Austrian courts would not exist, after the country has been annexed.

Stranger: People sue for war crimes after the wars are over.

You: Then we set them back up. :D

Stranger: Depending on who won it.

Stranger: Germans would not allow you to.

You: If Austria is part of Germany, the wars are over.

Stranger: Have you seen someone sued for a war crime if he is on the winning side of the war?

You: I don't follow international courts that closely.

Stranger: War crime trials are a farce of the victors punishing the defeated ones.

You: Not always.

You: There's dictators and such.

You: But your whole argument assumes a war in the first place.

You: It's pretty circular.

Stranger: When was Saddam Hussein sued?

Stranger: After his country was outran by the American forces.

You: I never said all dictators.

Stranger: He wouldnt have been sued if he didnt lose the war.

You: Now present me a case where war would be okay.

Stranger: Imagine your town was conquered they same way i described it

You: There's already a war there.

You: Now present me a case where war would be okay.

Stranger: I present you a case where a defensive war is ok.

Stranger: Which was caused by the invasion of foreign forces.

You: That was a war which was not okay.

You: The Germans were in the wrong.

Stranger: Its justified for one of the sides.

You: The war, per se, is wrong.

Stranger: In this situation it is not wrong to go to war if you are Austrian.

You: The war is wrong.

Stranger: Not for the Austrian side.

You: The war, in and of itself, is wrong.

Stranger: It is but it would also be wrong if you were Austrian and did nothing.

You: What I'm saying is I'm against war.

Stranger: You said self defence is ok?

You: Yes, it is.

Stranger: Imagine that Germany and Austria are persons.

You: Murder of innocent defenseless civilians isn't.

You: Germany and Austria aren't people. That's the problem.

You: Germany and Austria are countries.

Stranger: Of course they are. There are German and Austrian people.

Stranger: Its just on a larger scale.

You: Okay.

You: Imagine this.

You: You're in an elementary school, and a bunch of bullies from a nearby high school come and rape your classmates.

You: You then proceed to kill a bunch of high schoolers who did nothing wrong.

You: You're treating countries like people and not groups of people.

Stranger: That is irrelevant, since we have legislation in your situation in the first place.

You: Exactly.

You: The problem with war is legislation goes out the window.

You: I logically see that everyone is an individual. You lump them together and assign blame to whole groups and nations.

You: And atrocity committed by one person of group X does not justify an atrocity against group X.

Stranger: If I see a foreign army marching towards my town, shooting at people, I would surely lump them together.

You: Let's try something for a second.

You: Look back through the examples you gave.

You: Instead of "30" think "1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1".

Stranger: And each one of them killed a person before my eyes.

You: for the 5th or 6th time, go ahead and shoot them.

You: And then think of the 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 civilian bystanders who did nothing wrong that would be killed by an all-out war.

You: All with names and histories and futures and hopes and dreams and plans and personalities.

You: Each just as human as you, me, and your family.

Stranger: And yet, they decided to take part of an assault that would take the lives of innocents.

Stranger: Don`t they deserve to die?

You: No, I said bystanders.

You: Innocent civilians.

You: You can't fight a war without civilian casualties.

Stranger: So you would rather leave those that started it all unpunished?

You: Of course not.

You: That's why we need courts.

Stranger: There are no courts during war.

Stranger: Might makes right.

You: That's why I don't like war.

You: But Hank Von Auschwitz (I suck at making up foreign names >_<) was minding his own business

You: You'd have him die?

Stranger: Well, I dont like it either, but the others started it and my family is dead now. They deserve to be punished, and there are no courts to do it. What do i do?

You: He has 4 kids to feed.

You: If you kill him, you're just as bad.

Stranger: I guess I will be. But I would feel better if I killed the ones that started it along him.

You: Okay, what if they'd killed another family instead, and YOUR family was among the innocents that would be killed by the war.

Stranger: You mean if i was on the German side?

You: No, I mean if the Germans had bombed another house

You: But your family would be among the civilian casualties of a war.

Stranger: It would be the same really, since the events were caused by the German army`s actions.

You: So you would kill your own family?

Stranger: What?

You: You said it would be the same.

You: You support a war if they bombed your family and the war would kill innocent strangers.

You: I switched the two.

Stranger: I wouldnt sign up until my family is hurt.

You: If they bombed innocent strangers and the war would kill your family, you would not sign up?

Stranger: I would, thats what I said.

You: I'm confused.

Stranger: If the war kills my family, I would sign up/

You: No, that's not what I mean.

You: Would you support a retaliatory war if your family wasn't killed, but retaliating would mean their death?

Stranger: No, I wouldn`t.

You: Would you support a retaliatory war if your family was killed, but retaliating would mean the death of innocent strangers?

Stranger: Yes.

You: Would you support a retaliatory war if your family wasn't killed, and retaliating would mean the death of innocent strangers?

Stranger: No.

You: Would you support a retaliatory war if your family was killed, and retaliating would mean the death of your family?

Stranger: Arent they already dead in the first place?

You: Not all of them.

Stranger: How can I be sure that my family will die in a retaliating war?

You: Same way you can be sure civilians will die.

You: Same as the the first question, "Would you support a retaliatory war if your family wasn't killed, but retaliating would mean their death?"

You: You had no trouble answering the first question.

You: I'm getting a storm here, so can you email me in case I lose power?

Stranger: Its because i know that my family wasn`t killed. Thats why I wouldnt support a war no matter what.

Stranger: Yeah sure. tell me your email.

You: Okay.

You: It's <email>.

You: Just shoot me an email.

Stranger: got it

You: Thanks.

You: So basically your support for war rests on whether or not your family was killed?

Stranger: Yes.

You: What if your family was killed, but retaliating would kill more of your family. You never answered fourth question.

You: family?*

Stranger: Its because its a false question. You cant choose the one or the other.

You: What do you mean?

Stranger: You cant be certain that if you choose retaliating it will kill more of your family.

You: You had no trouble answering my first question, "Would you support a retaliatory war if your family wasn't killed, but retaliating would mean their death?".

Stranger: Its because I cared only about the first part of the question.

You: So you won't answer #4?

Stranger: No, because I cant be sure for the second part.

You: I couldn't be sure of half the things you asked me to assume!

You: So assume you are sure.

You: Retaliating will kill more of your family.

Stranger: I would probably not support a war.

You: They could be captive somewhere, or you could have a crystal ball, or a visitor came from the future. It doesn't matter how you know.

You: Okay.

Stranger: But if I am not certain and I believe I can protect them this way, I can probably support it.

You: So for the question "Would you support a retaliatory war if ______ was killed, but retaliating would mean the death of ______?", if F is your family and S is strangers

You: For [F, S] we have yes.

You: For [S, S] we have no.

You: For [S, F] we have no.

You: And for [F, F] we have probably not but maybe I guess if it was [F, S]

Stranger: Exactly.

You: So yes, no, no, no.

You: Because your exception for [F, F] would change it into [F, S].

You: So you'd oppose a war that hasn't killed your family yet, and you'd oppose a war that will kill your family.

You: Let's say [F, iS], and so on to clarify that they're innocent strangers.

Stranger: Ok

You: So we still have the same answers?

You: For [F, iS] we have yes.

You: For [S, iS] we have no.

You: oops

Stranger: Yes it would be the same

You: For [iS, iS] we have no.

You: okay

You: For [iS, F] we have no.

You: and [F, F] is the same.

You: It all depends on if someone in your family is involved?

Stranger: I guess that is the factor, yes.

You: So for [F, F], you say no, and for [iS, iS] you say no.

You: So if you viewed everyone equally, you would oppose the war.

You: I do, and therefore I do.

You: Same reason I oppose abortion.

Stranger: Do you see your mother as equal as a mass murder?

You: More or less, yes I do.

You: I don't know what she does at night, so she may be. ;)

You: But I see all innocents as equal.

Stranger: This is my point why we are humans and thinking logically is not always good.

You: The innocent and the guilty differ with respect to guilt.

Stranger: Your mother is not equal to a mass murder.

You: Okay, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the innocent and the guilty are not equal.

You: That has no impact on my argument.

You: For [F, F], you say no, and for [iS, iS] you say no.

You: Let's just say [iF, iF], since I presume your family is innocent.

Stranger: Indeed, my mother is not equal to an innocent stranger to me.

You: I don't see it that way.

Stranger: I am not a machine to think that way, I am a human.

You: I see [i, i] and [i, i].

You: Look back through your answers like that.

Stranger: So would your 4 year old daughter be equal to a 70 year foreigner to you?

You: For [iX, iX] we have yes

You: For [iX, iX] we have no

You: For [iX, iX] we have no

Stranger: Answer the question :)

You: For [iX, iX] we have probably not but maybe I guess if it was [i, i]

You: Sorry, I'd scrolled up.

You: Morally, yes.

You: Now look back through your answers from my viewpoint.

You: For [iX, iX] we have yes

Stranger: What does morally mean? I ask you as a human being. Would they be totally the same to you?

You: Let me make my point.

Stranger: Ok

You: Let's replace F and S with H, for human being.

You: For [iH, iH] we have yes.

You: For [iH, iH] we have no.

You: For [iH, iH] we have no.

You: For [iH, iH] we have probably not but maybe I guess if it was [iH, iH]

You: But I suppose we're thinking differently.

You: It's a personality thing and not something I think we can get far on, since discussions need a common foundation.

You: If you're arguing from different axioms, you can't get anywhere.

You: This has probably been the heaviest conversation on this site ever.

Stranger: True that.

You: Much better than "hi wanna have sex???//"

Stranger: :D

You: or "cam???>>/

You: "

You: Well, we've been here for, like, an hour, so do you wanna talk later over email?

Stranger: Yes, sounds good.

You: Okay.

You: You have my email, right?

Stranger: Yes.

Stranger: :)

You: Okay.

You: Could you shoot me an email?

Stranger: Yes, I sent you one

You: Thanks.

Stranger: When you gave me yours.

You: LOL, check this out

You: You: Let's replace F and S with H, for human being.

You: if we say iS

You: we get FiSH

You: lol

Stranger: HAHA

Stranger: :D

You: I didn't meann to do that. :D

You: mean*

You: I was considering going with P for person

You: FiSP isn't a word.

Stranger: Indeed.

Stranger: FiSH is better fot your theory.

You: How?

Stranger: well it is FiSH after all.

You: You know what, answer me over email. I'm starving.

Stranger: Let me ask you something

Stranger: and I leave

You: Okay.

You: Say Bye before you leave.

Stranger: Do you consider yourself totally equal to the guy asking you "cam sex?"

You: Yes.

Stranger: Ok.

You: If he got shot I'd hope the killer went to jail.

Stranger: I dont really all people are equal. It sounds bad but that is my belief.

Stranger: think*

You: You accidentally the verb!

Stranger: :D

You: Well, see ya.

Stranger: Goodbye.

You have disconnected.

or switch to video or send us feedback

Was this conversation great? Share the log on Facebook or download it!