I hope you didn't stay up all night thinking on this one.

I really don't think you need a bible or ARFCOM to tell me that eating your own feces is wrong and most certainly wouldn't need advice on genocide.

IBTL

Quoted: Quoted: I hope you didn't stay up all night thinking on this one. I really don't think you need a bible or ARFCOM to tell me that eating your own feces is wrong and most certainly wouldn't need advice on genocide. IBTL Just got off a 12 hour shift. So, again, if it is so obvious, why is genocide wrong in all cases?  Just give me the reason, and I will be convinced.

“We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”

Quoted: Quoted: if you can't stipulate that killing is wrong, can you give us an example of something else that you think is wrong so we have a frame of reference? I just want to know why genocide would be wrong in all cases.   I cannot give you an example of something that is objectively wrong, no.  I have no evidence of such an act.

Highly suggest you lay off the TV.  Its rotting your brain.

People are responsible for their actions.

If you don't believe that you should afford the same rights to others as you expect then you shouldn't surprised when others do onto you first.

Now find a rubber ball and throw it against the wall.  You will notice it bounces back.  For every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction.  That's a law of nature and science.  

You don't kill others so others don't kill you.  Now if you have this desire to die, I highly recommend you seek some help.

Tj

BTW, I was laughing about this thread and told my wife.  She bet me you are under 20 years old.

IBTL…

I expect we may even see an account lock out of this thread…


ANdy

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The question is not about me.   Many people who are not religious make claims such as "genocide is just wrong."  I simply want to know why a non-religious person believes genocide would be wrong.  If you believe it is wrong, you must believe it for some reason.  You must have some evidence. This came up in the thread about Slobodan Milosevic.  I said what he did in his country was his business, so long as he did not threaten other nations.  The comment was made that genocide is always wrong, even if it is purely an internal affair in a sovereign nation. ok, it's unnatural. Is there another species on the planet that kills a whole subset of its population because of a different appearance or though process? There is not another species capable of such organized action.   Are you saying that if, wolves for example, were capable of organizing and removing all competetors from a certain area, they would not do it?  They would see it is "unnatural?" Wolves have highly complex social interactions. I'm not aware of wolves wiping out other packs.

Come up to Alaska.  Vicious fuckers.
They kill for fun and they kill their own.
A lion that takes over a pride kills all the cubs so the females will mate with him.
Ants attack and destroy other ants they discover.  

But to answer your question, lets take a swing.
Man exists to reproduce.
Reproduction for humans is a long-term prospect, the off spring being utterly defenseless for up to 10 years.
The male's first job is to protect the female and the offspring from harm so that he may reproduce.  While raping and pillaging do work, they are a high risk proposition.  Risk #1, that the male may be killed while trying to rape and pillage by a defending male.
Risk #2, that the child concieved during said rape will be undefended and killed by another raping band.
So you must accept, for reasons of argument, that a male's #1 job is defending his offspring from harm.  
Genocide, as a rough definition, is the murder of all who comprise a certain ethnic group regardless of the threat posed.  IE women children, old folk, etc.
to engage in genocide is to create fear not only of the targeted group, but other groups who may be targeted later.  This fear can lead to attacks against the group commiting genocide, thus risking their offspring and negating their prime job of males, protecting their offspring.
It is much easier for two men to simply be defensive against one another and not attack.  This leaves time for hunting, building, and keeping their females and offspring alive.  A human to leave this work to go to war places offspring at risk UNLESS that war is one to protect an attacking band.
The natural state of men is peace at the basic level.  No man I know wants only to fight and never know comfort of hearth and home.  Those who fight (the warrior) do so with the knowledge that it is necessary and they prove their ability to do task #1; protect the women and children.  The warrior ethos can possibly be defined as the desire for a man to prove he can do what it takes to protect his offspring.
But there are always those who seek to expand their power (with power comes means to reproduce) so wars are fought incessantly to stop those few who enlist others to cause havoc for their own gain (often this enlistment is through promises of material gain and reproductinve possiblities (aka rape and pillage))

To sum up, to engage in genocide is to risk your own offspring to retrobution.  As women and children cannot pose a threat to your own offspring, it is logically wrong to incur such risk for so little foreseeable gain.
Any genocide runs a high risk that all not of your own race/band/troop/country will come together to kill your armies and leave your women and children undefended.
Chew on that.  I am spitballing so I am sure I left a few holes.

Some of you people really need to lighten up and read the point of the thread.  His point is not without validitiy, though wrong.