LogFAQs > #876645179

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Its logically inconsistent to consider women off limits in war.
Fam_Fam 04/06/17 7:17:14 AM #11:	evoL_nekorB posted... hollow_shrine posted... ITT TC apparently cannot appreciate the difference between civilian and soldier casualties. There is a difference. What TC is pointing out, however, is something a bit different. Hurting female and child civilians is considered "worse" than males. He is arguing, at least for women, this is not fair, if we consider women to be equal to men. We consider them either weaker or more valuable (and obviously its weaker) and so this is reported in order to make an attack seem more "evil", when in fact it would be equally bad if it were all males. I can see his point. "Women and children" shouldn't be used as a headline to gain sympathy or create outrage. <cite>Fam_Fam posted [p:876645179] in Its logica... [t:75202262]...</cite> <quote><cite>evoL_nekorB posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote>ITT TC apparently cannot appreciate the difference between civilian and soldier casualties.</quote></quote> There is a difference. What TC is pointing out, however, is something a bit different. Hurting female and child civilians is considered "worse" than males. He is arguing, at least for women, this is not fair, if we consider women to be equal to men. We consider them either weaker or more valuable (and obviously its weaker) and so this is reported in order to make an attack seem more "evil", when in fact it would be equally bad if it were all males. I can see his point. "Women and children" shouldn't be used as a headline to gain sympathy or create outrage.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1