I'm a little shocked that you think warfare has two sides that are complicit when in reality it's full of young clueless kids who don't know what they're doing. Are you implying that soldiers are like UFC fighters on a ring? That there's some competitive element to killing in war and that makes rape worse than murder? I'm going to argue again that your argument is self-deprecating.
Rape happens a lot in war too, for strategic reasons. Are you going to argue that rape in war is also competitive?
I'm honestly baffled at how you came to any of these conclusions.
I don't condone war at all. I don't condone murder or rape either. Like I said earlier, my point is that there are certain scenarios in which western society rationalizes killing as acceptable. There is no equivalent for rape.
Please don't troll HN. The last thing we need on divisive topics is people stirring up worse flamewars.
Technically, it's not. Historically in some places and tubes it may have been, but “was” and “is” are different things.
No. Not in most of the Western world it isn't today.
Yes, and society generally doesn't find it acceptable to rape animals, either, which was my point. As a counterpoint, try to think of the most contrived example where rape can somehow be justified. My argument is it doesn't exist in western society, whereas this isn't the case for killing and stealing.
>>Nobody's thinking of self-defense when they say "we absolutely massacred them."
My point is that there are other cases where the of killing people is justifiable in some way. Self defense may not apply, but that phrase could be used when both parties are complicit in the killing. Generally, you'd use the above phrase in competitive events - that is, two parties fighting each other and one side winning in a landslide. Same difference in warfare - what separate it from murder is the complicity of both sides. Murder keeps getting thrown out there, but again, the analogies are more in line with general killing than murder.