[Mechie]

(Original post by JPKC)
Ask yourself - is just war theory not closer to pacifism than the alternative that other "no" voters believe in?

It accepts that war is a moral issue, whereas the alternative (realism, as it's known) completely denies that. It's a matter of degree and this Motion's proposal is a lot closer to pacifism than what we have at current. Silly to vote against it.

Well yes, it is, and I must admit I'm slightly ashamed to be saying "no" in the same boat as tehFrance and tufc. The point still stands that I don't agree with the motion (as we've discussed about the "just war" section, no need to bring this up again) so I voted against it.

[JPKC]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Well yes, it is, and I must admit I'm slightly ashamed to be saying "no" in the same boat as tehFrance and tufc. The point still stands that I don't agree with the motion (as we've discussed about the "just war" section, no need to bring this up again) so I voted against it.

Were all votes here were decided through individual members agreeing with various items exactly then nothing much would pass.

If you don't think that the Motion's proposals would be an improvement then okay; I personally reckon that an all-or-nothing approach to issues like this is illogical.

[Mechie]

(Original post by JPKC)
Were all votes here were decided through individual members agreeing with various items exactly then nothing much would pass.

If you don't think that the Motion's proposals would be an improvement then okay; I personally reckon that an all-or-nothing approach to issues like this is illogical.

Probably, but oh well.

[DebatingGreg]

It will (probably) still pass anyhow

[Metrobeans]

The aye's have it! The aye's have it!