- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,710
- Reaction score
- 35,488
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
By "sufficient cause" I meant sufficient cause to justify it.
Then that would be "sufficient just cause" or "Sufficient cause to justify it". That's not what you said.
And it's obvious why you didn't say it...because that's a subjective thing.
Whether or not something is "justified" is subjective in nature.
Again, you're erroniously demanind people to prove a negative.
You claim that it's "objective", so it's incumbant upon you to prove that it's objective.
If someone else claims that it's subjective, they have to prove that it's subjective.
It's not ones responsability or "burden" to disprove your claim. The burden of proof for YOUR claim is on you. They only have to prove their claim.
As already pointed out by other posters, there are individuals who believe that the Holocaust was absolutely justified. There are others who believe it wasn't justified. That inherently proves that there's a subjective view of "justification" regarding the holocaust.
If you want to claim that there's an OBJECTIVE view of "justification" regarding the holocaust, that's on you. Either you need to somehow prove how it's "objectively" good or how it's "Objectively" bad. But the burden of proof is on you for that.
Justify means to prove it's a "good" reason. What is "good" is an entirely subjective notion, as demonstrated by the fact that different people view different actions as "Good" or "Bad. If you want to suggest that it's "objective", then you need to provide proof of that.
How do you test whether something is just or not?
How do you prove something is just or not?
How do you measure if something is just or not?