Emily wait wait wait that totally destroys

han

read this passage from the crisis. what rationale is paine using for going to war with great britain? my own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. not all the treasures of the world, so far as i believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for i think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am i to suffer it? what signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? if we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other.

it is waged war against an army of countrymen

it would lead to independence from britain

it would be an offensive war

it would be a defensive war

innocence can be defined as the lack of sin, relating it with the lack of guilt, also it can be a synonime of naivety. most people agree that sins are made out of experiences, intentionally or not, as well as you stop being naive once certain things happen to you throughout your life. so, with this explained, the chosen answers are:

when the boy saw the effects of war, he no longer viewed life as innocent.

the loss of innocence is a result of gaining experience and making mistakes.

one way to define innocence is as a lack of worldly experience or sophistication.