Those *dangerous* Korean War relics

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
And to the parent post that said, "they were still buying stolen
(kidnapped) "goods." "Stolen" is a legal term. At the time there wasn't
a law against the slave trade so they weren't stolen they were bought
and sold in accordance with the law of the time.

"Stolen" is a moral as well as legal term. Legalized theft can still
constitute stealing, in the moral sense.

But this thread is suggesting a legal remedy. If we are going to get money
and lawyers involved we have to stick to the legal use of the term.

Why? That seems like an arbitrary and unmotivated rule restricting a
discussion that involves both moral and legal issues. We should be able to
use any sense of any term we want, as long as it's clear what sense we're
using (as long as it's clear that we are not referring to a violation of the
then-current property laws).

If you prefer to use another term instead, such as "immorally taken", that's
fine. No substantive question is affected by the choice of terminology.

--Gary