John Spencer
When Dave's logic is shown to fail, or his plea to address his "real" claim (answered by centuries of thought and scholarship on the morality of war) he tries 2 things: 1) accuse someone of making a plea to expertise, authority, or credentials 2) make a plea of emotion - "but how does that centuries of thought/scholarship/globally accepted frame works account for death of children and intentionality." - it does btw, that is a fact. It is not an insult to make a judgement of Dunning-Kruger effect. Just an assessment based statements and positions. You can be anti-war, but you don't get to be anti-fact on how the moral or legal frameworks of war account for intentionality.
Dave Smith
This is like arguing with an Aztec high priest about the morality of child sacrifice. He has no response to my obvious point so he has to lie, insult, assert that there is a doctrine, that moral considerations have already been addressed, anything but address the reality of internationally killing children.