Yeah, this study doesn't seem too legit. More like a collection of anecdotes than something rigorous and carefully constructed.

That was lucidly and logically stated, so I'd prepare for hordes of pitchfork-wielding internet vigilantes if I were you.

Excellently stated

Huh? I think I missed something

No, dipshit, you added the context as if it were a parallel, and I introduced a context with better parallels. Arguments by analogy are only as strong as the analogy itself, and you provided a poor one for the case in question.

Nazi analogy is weak, because Nazism itself would provide the motivation to violence, with or without an invading army. It's a fairly aggressive weltanschauung. Also, you tried to load it with 'high ranking' and Jewish spoils, while it is very clearly evident that I have only been referring to those who fought out…

I'm merely trying to gain an insight into your moral code. It's fascinating to me. I was trying to use an abstraction to understand where you make your divisions between right and wrong, not on a political level, but on a personal level. Wars are fought by individuals, with personal reasons for fighting. State and…

I just want to lock you into the answer since you haven't explicitly stated. So, please confirm, it is not honorable to defend to one's family? Care to explain why?

You've said some people who fought may have mitigated their culpability, but you've never articulated explicitly how or at what point that mitigation would turn them 'good.'

No, you have not. You have a curious moral system, and I'm asking you to expand on it. It's a rare treat to engage a fascist, and I can't pass up the opportunity to examine your moral gymnastics.

How does burning down private homes not equal indiscriminate violence against civilians? Expelling them from their homes for no sin other than living in Atlanta is also collective punishment of civilians.

At that point in the war ATL was not a military target. It had been occupied by Union troops. And the two mile wide stretch of GA was also certainly not a valid military target.

I'd like to get your answers to my other questions before I respond.

You still haven't addressed the moral justification for collective punishment of civilians, btw. Really eager to hear that one.

I'm not interested in American books or British books. I'm interested in moral truth.

So traitor in your book isn't necessarily a bad thing? There are good traitors and bad traitors.

I'm also interested to see your moral justification for the collective punishment of civilian populations. if it's good enough, maybe I'll forward it to Syrian mission at the UN.

How did I not make that clear? Here would be my basic point: a government can take certain actions which by their nature make resistance to that government a legitimate moral option. If the current government were to decide to exterminate all left handed people, I wouldn't consider myself, or anyone else, for taking…

The Vichy govt had de facto sovereignty, delineated borders, recognition by multiple foreign govts, maintained public services, operated embassies, conducted trade, collected taxes, signed treaties and did not fall to the traitors, but rather to foreign invaders. Indians, on the other hand, had no external…

Right? Really gutsy move by ol' Marty.