Now that I’m rereading this, how can one look at the act of killing and compare it to picking fucking fruit?
The point I’m making is a grammatical one. The premise of your argument is that the term “killing” without a subject implies a blanket application of all forms of killing, whether they be for necessity or pleasure, of nazis or puppies. The premise of my argument is that the term “killing” without a subject is nonsense. There’s no such thing as killing without a subject.
It is like “picking fruit” only in the sense that “picking” requires a subject. You can’t speak on all “picking” because that doesn’t exist. You can pick clothes, pick fruit, pick up cute boys, whatever. To suggest that there is some nebulous concept of “picking” is just as logical as to suggest the existence of some nebulous concept of “killing.” You can’t pick without a thing to pick, you can’t kill without someone to kill. It is the someone which determines whether the killing is good or bad.
The point I’m making is a grammatical one. The premise of your argument is that the term “killing” without a subject implies a blanket application of all forms of killing, whether they be for necessity or pleasure, of nazis or puppies. The premise of my argument is that the term “killing” without a subject is nonsense. There’s no such thing as killing without a subject.
It is like “picking fruit” only in the sense that “picking” requires a subject. You can’t speak on all “picking” because that doesn’t exist. You can pick clothes, pick fruit, pick up cute boys, whatever. To suggest that there is some nebulous concept of “picking” is just as logical as to suggest the existence of some nebulous concept of “killing.” You can’t pick without a thing to pick, you can’t kill without someone to kill. It is the someone which determines whether the killing is good or bad.