But the og reply I’m replying to said “correct” (not best, or appropriate, or practical), that’s why I don’t want a raging natural murderer doing any murdering (not even as executioner).
That’s why you don’t usually have hero movies where heroes heroically kill people & enjoy it - but rather heroes that oppose killing (but still kill a buch of evil™ people).
Well, since it’s not exact science we are talking about the “correct” can only mean something totally subjective.
So I might not think ever the correct solution to use a murdering idiot with a gun.
Not least because that implies having (and keeping) murdering idiots.
That’s one example why I would label that as an incorrect solution.
When?
When guerrilla warfare attacking another sovereign nation (so not on home soil)?
No, I don’t think there is a problem I want solved that way (the “murderous” part I mean).
For every problem, there is a sufficiently improbable scenario where it’s a benefit.
Yes, sufficiently improbable!
But the og reply I’m replying to said “correct” (not best, or appropriate, or practical), that’s why I don’t want a raging natural murderer doing any murdering (not even as executioner).
That’s why you don’t usually have hero movies where heroes heroically kill people & enjoy it - but rather heroes that oppose killing (but still kill a buch of evil™ people).
What definition of “correct” are you using that makes it significantly different from those others words?
Well, since it’s not exact science we are talking about the “correct” can only mean something totally subjective.
So I might not think ever the correct solution to use a murdering idiot with a gun.
Not least because that implies having (and keeping) murdering idiots.
That’s one example why I would label that as an incorrect solution.