I disagree because if you cut off ties from your culture and your past, you're only setting yourself up for failure. You are prone to make the same mistakes again. The past helps shape your future.
We can infer the following :
- Those men who gave their lives,did not die in vain""that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion-that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain (lines 18-21)""
- This war is betraying the ideals of the nation-he is saying that this war needs to come to a close.""lines 1 to 6: our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation,conceived in liberty and dedicated to the..."""
A foil is the near complete opposite of the main character (whichever character they want you to find a foil for).
Rainsford and Whitney were good hunting friends with numerous similar interests. They could not be foils because of how close in similarity they were. Even when they disagreed on how animals felt about being hunted, Whitney seemed open to and intrigued by Rainsford's points and way of thinking.
Ivan is a near irrelevant character, being a mere Cossack who follows whatever General Zaroff says. He is mindless and has almost zero traits to even compare to Rainsford, let alone any traits aside from a mindless follower to begin with.
The answer would be General Zaroff. This is almost like the cliche protagonist vs antagonist foil. Both of them are hunters, but different kinds. Zaroff got bored with animals and wanted to hunt human people instead, whereas Rainsford had enjoyed the thrill of an animal hunt and thinks that the hunting of people is murder. Zaroff is more heartless and cold, a killer, if you will. Rainsford seems to think highly of actual people, and had no interest in playing Zaroff's game.
Answer: We are not initially responsible for the capture of slaves taken as a result of war.
The first statement disputes the claim because it argues that captives from wars might still be taken in an unjust way. The third statement similarly disputes the claim by arguing that not all captives are victims of combat, but some were kidnapped despite their peaceful existence. Finally, the last statement argues that even if captives were taken lawfully in those wars, it would still be a great kindness to help them.
The second statement, on the other hand, supports the claim. It argues that the capture of slaves is not our responsibility, as they have been lawfully taken during war.
