Honestly, I don't know why I feel the need to explain this to you, because I'm quite certain you won't understand.
I didn't fail when you keep it in context.
Correct. I'm going to admit that you've actually convinced me of something. Your response proves that you lack comprehension and vocabulary-depth. This is not really any more failsome than everything else you've spewed on topic.
Except....
Quote
In the community it's generally held that killing your neighbor is a bad thing, but in some places killing someone in a neighboring town is celebrated. But if you start killing neighboring villagers they'll start coming to kill your villagers, eventually the chiefs have to come together and say 'no more killing, you handle your people, I'll handle mine.'
Then if you ride to a neighboring village and kill someone, YOUR village gets pissed because the whole mess is going to start again.
Is pretty much a rewording of what I said. It just ignores the fundamental reality that the chiefs frequently didn't just come together and talk it out. My chief decided it was okay to just slaughter your village and be done with the mess. If none of your people are around to affect my people, there's nobody to complain. And if your village was known as the place of the legendary complainers, it's entirely possible that this aggressive action would be ignored by otherwise unaffected villages.
Quote
It's a matter of scope and perspective and so long as you keep that in focus, then my logic is pretty clear.
I don't need to bother with scope and perspective as your logic is laughably fallacious at best. Understanding is a three-edged sword; what they believe, what you believe and the truth. You're trying to convince the other side that you're right and there is no truth. The other side is trying to convince you that their belief lies closer to the truth then yours. I'm afraid you don't understand that choosing such a battle is foolish.