We know: We know: a government whose sole purpose is to protect its people has committed the mass murder of unarmed civilians. has committed the mass murder of unarmed civilians.
That’s all there is to know to make a judgement about what has happened.
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement.
What is it exactly you’re confused about?
Which boss is perfect? Which dad is? Nothing and no one is.
But there are shades. Some are way closer to the bar than others.
I can list hundreds of governments that have not reacted to mass protests by killing unarmed civilians (their own people) by the thousand.
That's a long way from asserting that it is, in fact, the sole purpose of government, which was what I objected to.
Even if you drop the word “sole” entirely, the basic expectation is still that a government does not kill unarmed civilians.
At that point, it is fair to wonder whether the objection adds any clarity, or just pulls attention away from the judgment itself.