this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
309 points (97.8% liked)

Memes

45553 readers
1643 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 49 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Only if you’re not the government.

[–] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago

I mean that's basically what the war is about: who all is the government where (i.e. who can arbitrarily kill people legally).

[–] spauldo@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

The exclusive right to commit violence is a standard feature of governments, yes.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If someone tries to kill you just say "no thank you."

Legally they cannot kill you.

[–] cursedanubis@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

If you do not consent, their bullets cannot enter your body either

[–] Montagge@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

It's only legal to kill people when rich people can profit from it

[–] solidgrue@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Calls to mind the end of Month Python and the Holy Grail wherein the massed armies of King Arthur are rounded up and arrested by some constables for disturbing the peace upon the moors.

[–] scubbo@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

That ending was such a cop-out

[–] DeathWearsANecktie@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

TikTok girl ends all war

[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

But they have a point, how can people legally kill other people, will every case be checked?

[–] Knuschberkeks@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

not literally every case, but yes there are international laws (e.g Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) in place detailing who is allowed to kill who and in what way.

[–] eldain@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago

By disabling the rule of law in an area. The legal government and law enforcement is overpowered and you get a zone of martial law by the strongest force present, which may or may not be bound by a mandate of their origin country, and hence could be held responsible and controlled for acts outside of their mandate.

[–] Absolutemehperson@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't the point of official "declaration of war" thing is to kill people legally?

what if it's not really a war, not that formal just a casual occasion like it's just a holiday that somehow became a special military operation

[–] Ertebolle@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Although one wonders if "War and Peace" would have been as highly acclaimed as it was if it was published under its original name "War: What Is It Good For?"

[–] Absolutemehperson@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Come on Jerry, that's not real!

[–] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Ertebolle@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Fun fact: that same actor also played Admiral Hanson in the classic Star Trek: The Next Generation 2-parter "The Best of Both Worlds."

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 7 points 1 year ago

Legit question ngl

[–] Thteven@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago
[–] ripcord@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I mean, war is partly when any/most rule of law has broken down or isn't present.

[–] Etienne_Dahu@jlai.lu 2 points 1 year ago

"Curses! Foiled again!"

-Putin, probably

[–] RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Not when it's over oil, apparently.