Genocide - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Genocide (Page 2 of 8)

Posted: 3/11/2006 6:51:57 AM EDT

[#1]

Why don't somebody say it...

Posted: 3/11/2006 6:52:23 AM EDT

[#2]

This is not my personal belief, but I'll play.

Because you might start something that could backfire on you.

Self preservation would dictate that you don't do something that
could do more harm than good.

How did it turn out for Slobodan Milosevic and all the others that have tried it?

GM

Posted: 3/11/2006 6:53:08 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
I really think this kind of deep, philosophical question should be tried somewhere else.

Why not ask this question at a Starbucks?

I am sure you will get lots of "intelligent" answers from the types that hang out there for hours.

what is worse; an intelligent answer or a stupid worthless post?

Posted: 3/11/2006 6:54:03 AM EDT

[#4]

" If there is no God all things are permissable " - Dostoevsky

You say something is right, I say it is wrong. We cancel each other out. Only if there is a God, and God has revealed right and wrong to us can we say something is right or wrong , good or bad, just or unjust.
Hitler killed many Jews ( 6 Million ? ) and many Christians who tried to help them.
Stalin killed over 50 Million of his countrymen.
Mao is responsible for as many as 70 Million Chinese deaths.
All of these men were committed and reasoned atheists.
Without God, the rights and wrongs of what we call civilized countries disappears.
If there is no God, then there is nothing inconsistent with what these men did.
You may not like it. You may prefer that they not have done it, but you cannot call it wrong.
They thought it was right. So who are you to call them wrong ?
But if God calls them wrong, then you have something.
Unless God has revealed to us a moral code, we have none except that which is imposed on us by whoever has enough power.

Posted: 3/11/2006 6:55:32 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I really think this kind of deep, philosophical question should be tried somewhere else.

Why not ask this question at a Starbucks?

I am sure you will get lots of "intelligent" answers from the types that hang out there for hours.

what is worse; an intelligent answer or a stupid worthless post?

Feeding an obvious

.

Posted: 3/11/2006 6:59:11 AM EDT

[#6]

If genocide is an acceptable form of political and social control the human race does not deserve to be exist.

Thank God genocide is not acceptable to civilized decent human beings.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:00:14 AM EDT

[#7]

Sylvan:

Thanks for that reply.

What if the genocide were simply in order for one group to have the natural resources of another group?

How would that not be justified under your framework?

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:00:38 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I really think this kind of deep, philosophical question should be tried somewhere else.

Why not ask this question at a Starbucks?

I am sure you will get lots of "intelligent" answers from the types that hang out there for hours.

what is worse; an intelligent answer or a stupid worthless post?

Feeding an obvious .

While it is a trolling question, I don't think its an 88 thing. It also goes back to the milosovic threadwww.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=444932&page=2

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:01:28 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
If genocide is an acceptable form of political and social control the human race does not deserve to be exist.

Thank God genocide is not acceptable to civilized decent human beings.

Why is it not acceptable to civilized, decent human beings?

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:01:37 AM EDT

[#10]

He's just trying to justify being an apologist for the serbs and their actions in the Balkans. He's probably one of those retards thats proud to be from a crappy country like serbia. Or those fake gangsters from myspace who are actually proud to be Albanian

.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:03:15 AM EDT

[#11]

I am asking because I did not want to sidetrack the Milosovic thread.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:05:10 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Sylvan:

Thanks for that reply.

What if the genocide were simply in order for one group to have the natural resources of another group?

How would that not be justified under your framework?

Risk Reward again. Would the resources be worth the risk.
Subjegation is a much better proposition. A subjegated man may still reproduce and most won't fight back. But when threatened with annihilation, all men with the means to do so will fight.
Take what you want and leave just enough so that the individual man is unthreatened. Ruthlesslessly crush any revolts and murder all leaders, but leave the peasants alone and you are OK.
Look at the english and how they handled scotland and ireland.
To further the discussion, the whole point of military and political conquest is to find how far you can subjugate your opponent without creating a backlash.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:05:35 AM EDT

[#13]

In our civilization, you simply don't have the right to end another man's life.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:06:08 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
He's just trying to justify being an apologist for the serbs and their actions in the Balkans. He's probably one of those retards thats proud to be from a crappy country like serbia. Or those fake gangsters from myspace who are actually proud to be Albanian.

OK.

No, I am just asking why genocide is morally wrong in all cases.

You either feel it is for justified religious reasons, or you must admit that you cannot say for certain that it is wrong at all.

You can have an opinion about it, but you cannot prove it one way or another. That is how it appears to me.

And no, I am not a Nazi or a Serb apologist.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:10:03 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Sylvan:

Thanks for that reply.

What if the genocide were simply in order for one group to have the natural resources of another group?

How would that not be justified under your framework?

Risk Reward again. Would the resources be worth the risk.
Subjegation is a much better proposition. A subjegated man may still reproduce and most won't fight back. But when threatened with annihilation, all men with the means to do so will fight.
Take what you want and leave just enough so that the individual man is unthreatened. Ruthlesslessly crush any revolts and murder all leaders, but leave the peasants alone and you are OK.
Look at the english and how they handled scotland and ireland.
To further the discussion, the whole point of military and political conquest is to find how far you can subjugate your opponent without creating a backlash.

OK. But with our technology today, it would be a fairly easy task to totally exterminate an indigenous population, if we wanted the resources in their area. There would then be no worry about subjugation.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:10:50 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
In our civilization, you simply don't have the right to end another man's life.

Right. But that doesn't answer the question.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:12:20 AM EDT

[#17]

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.

So you must be pretty happy with the events in Dafur right about now right? You know 70,000 dead and all, they could probably teach Milosevic a thing or two about how to run a genocide campaign. But it's in their own country so it's all good right?

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:13:46 AM EDT

[#18]

All you have to do is experience what the Jews in Concentration Camps, the Ukrainians under Stalin's rule, or the killing fields of Cambodia to see why it is wrong.

Certain things are just wrong, and you shouldn't have to have it explained to you. If you don't see why murder is wrong, then you have other issues to concern yourself about besides genocide.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:14:36 AM EDT

[#19]

I think I see where you are going with this; who is to say what is right and what is wrong?

As a civilization we establish "norms" and "standards" to live and work by. These are dictated either by religious beliefs, man-made laws, or a combination of both.

The simple answer is, whoever is in charge (as in leader of a particular nation) decides if it is right or wrong and acts accordingly.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:15:42 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
In our civilization, you simply don't have the right to end another man's life.

I am sure there are some death row inmates and muslims over in Iraq who disagree with enforcement of that policy.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:16:06 AM EDT

[#21]

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.

So you must be pretty happy with the events in Dafur right about now right? You know 70,000 dead and all, they could probably teach Milosevic a thing or two about how to run a genocide campaign. But it's in their own country so it's all good right?

I am not condoning genocide. I am simply posing a theoretical question.

But you are partly correct. I have no problem personally with what happens in Dafur.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:16:46 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If genocide is an acceptable form of political and social control the human race does not deserve to be exist.

Thank God genocide is not acceptable to civilized decent human beings.

Why is it not acceptable to civilized, decent human beings?

If you do not know why you have a problem.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:17:45 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
I think I see where you are going with this; who is to say what is right and what is wrong?

As a civilization we establish "norms" and "standards" to live and work by. These are dictated either by religious beliefs, man-made laws, or a combination of both.

The simple answer is, whoever is in charge (as in leader of a particular nation) decides if it is right or wrong and acts accordingly.

So, is genocide morally wrong in all cases?

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:20:18 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
All you have to do is experience what the Jews in Concentration Camps, the Ukrainians under Stalin's rule, or the killing fields of Cambodia to see why it is wrong.

Certain things are just wrong, and you shouldn't have to have it explained to you. If you don't see why murder is wrong, then you have other issues to concern yourself about besides genocide.

So, if I asked a Holocaust survivor why genocide is wrong in all cases, he would be able to tell me? People who survived the Holocaust possess knowledge about objective truths because of their experience?

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:21:11 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sylvan:

Thanks for that reply.

What if the genocide were simply in order for one group to have the natural resources of another group?

How would that not be justified under your framework?

Risk Reward again. Would the resources be worth the risk.
Subjegation is a much better proposition. A subjegated man may still reproduce and most won't fight back. But when threatened with annihilation, all men with the means to do so will fight.
Take what you want and leave just enough so that the individual man is unthreatened. Ruthlesslessly crush any revolts and murder all leaders, but leave the peasants alone and you are OK.
Look at the english and how they handled scotland and ireland.
To further the discussion, the whole point of military and political conquest is to find how far you can subjugate your opponent without creating a backlash.

OK. But with our technology today, it would be a fairly easy task to totally exterminate an indigenous population, if we wanted the resources in their area. There would then be no worry about subjugation.

That same technology can be used in defense and retribution by others.
Still fails the risk reward. No empire in history has been stronger than all other societies combined. When engaging in genocide, the fear that each society may be annihilated in turn will possibly cause them to come together to defend themselves pre-emptively.
Its not technology that makes genocide work. Its the idea that the people you are killing are a threat to other societies. Europe would have let all the jews die and wouldn't have lost a bit of sleep. The problem was hitler wasn't content with just killing jews.
The sudanese massacres are happening because nobody give a fuck about black christians and pagans.
Genocide will work, but the risk doesn't bring the reward. If you wipe out a minority population, you have gained little but risked much. If you wipe out a large population (or attempt to) than you will almost inevitably incur a backlash by other societies stronger in union.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:21:14 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If genocide is an acceptable form of political and social control the human race does not deserve to be exist.

Thank God genocide is not acceptable to civilized decent human beings.

Why is it not acceptable to civilized, decent human beings?

If you do not know why you have a problem.

Well, it appears to me that if you are not capable of telling me, then you have the same problem I have...

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:22:00 AM EDT

[#27]

The truth is to a certain degree this guy is right. Without using religious conviction you can't "prove" anything is wrong. I've had this argument with people many times, you say such and such is wrong because it hurts someone, and they then ask you, "Why?" This game continues until you can't prove eating an icecream cone is any different from raping a child. However, I still disagree on a practical level. As far as I am concerned man is a product of evolution (yea, I know, that is another threat) If the species of mankind is to survive (which I think anyone would agree is in out intrest) it must use the appropriot level of violence. As man evolved the very violent which disrupted society were killed off. Likewise, those were too submissive and left us vulnerable were killed off too. Today man is more "fit," a healthy medium of violence. I would say that the murder of innocents and genocide are levels of violence that make us less fit because they lead to more violence which eventually wipes us out. Therefore, murderers (on any scale) take away from the survivability of mankind. That is why genocide is wrong, because it makes the survival of our species impossible. On the otherhand, so does pacifism.

So did that make any sense or was it just a bunch of pseudo-scientific bullshit?

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:24:09 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think I see where you are going with this; who is to say what is right and what is wrong?

As a civilization we establish "norms" and "standards" to live and work by. These are dictated either by religious beliefs, man-made laws, or a combination of both.

The simple answer is, whoever is in charge (as in leader of a particular nation) decides if it is right or wrong and acts accordingly.

So, is genocide morally wrong in all cases?

In a word, yes.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:25:47 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sylvan:

Thanks for that reply.

What if the genocide were simply in order for one group to have the natural resources of another group?

How would that not be justified under your framework?

Risk Reward again. Would the resources be worth the risk.
Subjegation is a much better proposition. A subjegated man may still reproduce and most won't fight back. But when threatened with annihilation, all men with the means to do so will fight.
Take what you want and leave just enough so that the individual man is unthreatened. Ruthlesslessly crush any revolts and murder all leaders, but leave the peasants alone and you are OK.
Look at the english and how they handled scotland and ireland.
To further the discussion, the whole point of military and political conquest is to find how far you can subjugate your opponent without creating a backlash.

OK. But with our technology today, it would be a fairly easy task to totally exterminate an indigenous population, if we wanted the resources in their area. There would then be no worry about subjugation.

That same technology can be used in defense and retribution by others.
Still fails the risk reward. No empire in history has been stronger than all other societies combined. When engaging in genocide, the fear that each society may be annihilated in turn will possibly cause them to come together to defend themselves pre-emptively.
Its not technology that makes genocide work. Its the idea that the people you are killing are a threat to other societies. Europe would have let all the jews die and wouldn't have lost a bit of sleep. The problem was hitler wasn't content with just killing jews.
The sudanese massacres are happening because nobody give a fuck about black christians and pagans.
Genocide will work, but the risk doesn't bring the reward. If you wipe out a minority population, you have gained little but risked much. If you wipe out a large population (or attempt to) than you will almost inevitably incur a backlash by other societies stronger in union.

Interesting take, but it is still utilitarian in nature. Genocide is not wrong in any moral sense; it is simply advisable or unadvisable, given your current situation--like the decision to buy an HK auto sear on a credit card. Can you pay it off, or will it bankrupt you?

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:28:33 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sylvan:

Thanks for that reply.

What if the genocide were simply in order for one group to have the natural resources of another group?

How would that not be justified under your framework?

Risk Reward again. Would the resources be worth the risk.
Subjegation is a much better proposition. A subjegated man may still reproduce and most won't fight back. But when threatened with annihilation, all men with the means to do so will fight.
Take what you want and leave just enough so that the individual man is unthreatened. Ruthlesslessly crush any revolts and murder all leaders, but leave the peasants alone and you are OK.
Look at the english and how they handled scotland and ireland.
To further the discussion, the whole point of military and political conquest is to find how far you can subjugate your opponent without creating a backlash.

OK. But with our technology today, it would be a fairly easy task to totally exterminate an indigenous population, if we wanted the resources in their area. There would then be no worry about subjugation.

That same technology can be used in defense and retribution by others.
Still fails the risk reward. No empire in history has been stronger than all other societies combined. When engaging in genocide, the fear that each society may be annihilated in turn will possibly cause them to come together to defend themselves pre-emptively.
Its not technology that makes genocide work. Its the idea that the people you are killing are a threat to other societies. Europe would have let all the jews die and wouldn't have lost a bit of sleep. The problem was hitler wasn't content with just killing jews.
The sudanese massacres are happening because nobody give a fuck about black christians and pagans.
Genocide will work, but the risk doesn't bring the reward. If you wipe out a minority population, you have gained little but risked much. If you wipe out a large population (or attempt to) than you will almost inevitably incur a backlash by other societies stronger in union.

Interesting take, but it is still utilitarian in nature. Genocide is not wrong in any moral sense; it is simply advisable or unadvisable, given your current situation--like the decision to buy an HK auto sear on a credit card. Can you pay it off, or will it bankrupt you?

No. You wanted to remove morality and religion from the debate and I did so. It is always morally wrong to kill the innocent. Society exists to defend the defenseless and preserve those inalienable rights which Jefferson so movingly wrote of.
You wished to remove morality and religion from the debate and I did so.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:29:09 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
The truth is to a certain degree this guy is right. Without using religious conviction you can't "prove" anything is wrong. I've had this argument with people many times, you say such and such is wrong because it hurts someone, and they then ask you, "Why?" This game continues until you can't prove eating an icecream cone is any different from raping a child. However, I still disagree on a practical level. As far as I am concerned man is a product of evolution (yea, I know, that is another threat) If the species of mankind is to survive (which I think anyone would agree is in out intrest) it must use the appropriot level of violence. As man evolved the very violent which disrupted society were killed off. Likewise, those were too submissive and left us vulnerable were killed off too. Today man is more "fit," a healthy medium of violence. I would say that the murder of innocents and genocide are levels of violence that make us less fit because they lead to more violence which eventually wipes us out. Therefore, murderers (on any scale) take away from the survivability of mankind. That is why genocide is wrong, because it makes the survival of our species impossible. On the otherhand, so does pacifism.

So did that make any sense or was it just a bunch of pseudo-scientific bullshit?

Freepster, yours is the best response to this thread so far. However, I don't think it will satisfy the question posed by the original poster because he is convinced there is no answer.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:29:13 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it is murder and murder is wrong. If you can't understand something so simple then I have no other way to explain it.

Why is murder wrong? If it is so simple, you should have no problem stating why it is wrong in one sentence.

I am assuming you are not religious, as I made that exception in my first post.

Murder is wrong because it is un-natural. In nature, creatures do NOT indiscriminantly murder other creatures. Sure, they kill to eat/feed, or to protect themselves. But they do NOT naturally kill for no reason. Those that do are sick and are normally wiped out by the pack or driven out.

How's that?

Well, have you ever seen a cat "play" with a mouse, and eventually kill it, even if the cat is not hungry and has no intention of eating the mouse?

And again, animals have no sense of self. They are driven by instincts. The impulses you offer as proof are impulses they are not capable of to begin with.

Cat's do not kill mice to kill them

they are simply playing with them, the mice themselves are very fragile and die and accidental death.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:29:22 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
The truth is to a certain degree this guy is right. Without using religious conviction you can't "prove" anything is wrong. I've had this argument with people many times, you say such and such is wrong because it hurts someone, and they then ask you, "Why?" This game continues until you can't prove eating an icecream cone is any different from raping a child. However, I still disagree on a practical level. As far as I am concerned man is a product of evolution (yea, I know, that is another threat) If the species of mankind is to survive (which I think anyone would agree is in out intrest) it must use the appropriot level of violence. As man evolved the very violent which disrupted society were killed off. Likewise, those were too submissive and left us vulnerable were killed off too. Today man is more "fit," a healthy medium of violence. I would say that the murder of innocents and genocide are levels of violence that make us less fit because they lead to more violence which eventually wipes us out. Therefore, murderers (on any scale) take away from the survivability of mankind. That is why genocide is wrong, because it makes the survival of our species impossible. On the otherhand, so does pacifism.

So did that make any sense or was it just a bunch of pseudo-scientific bullshit?

No, that makes sense.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:29:31 AM EDT

[#34]

If a race or people is intent on committing genocide against you and your race, is it still wrong to do so to them?

Perhaps not.

Consider WWII. Yes, the Germans committed genocide angainst many different peoples, not just the jews. We fire bombed Dresden, obliterated other entire cities, nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Wrong? I think not and in this instance it is simply a matter of semantics.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:30:25 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think I see where you are going with this; who is to say what is right and what is wrong?

As a civilization we establish "norms" and "standards" to live and work by. These are dictated either by religious beliefs, man-made laws, or a combination of both.

The simple answer is, whoever is in charge (as in leader of a particular nation) decides if it is right or wrong and acts accordingly.

So, is genocide morally wrong in all cases?

In a word, yes.

So, it is wrong because the U.S. government says so?

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:31:35 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The truth is to a certain degree this guy is right. Without using religious conviction you can't "prove" anything is wrong. I've had this argument with people many times, you say such and such is wrong because it hurts someone, and they then ask you, "Why?" This game continues until you can't prove eating an icecream cone is any different from raping a child. However, I still disagree on a practical level. As far as I am concerned man is a product of evolution (yea, I know, that is another threat) If the species of mankind is to survive (which I think anyone would agree is in out intrest) it must use the appropriot level of violence. As man evolved the very violent which disrupted society were killed off. Likewise, those were too submissive and left us vulnerable were killed off too. Today man is more "fit," a healthy medium of violence. I would say that the murder of innocents and genocide are levels of violence that make us less fit because they lead to more violence which eventually wipes us out. Therefore, murderers (on any scale) take away from the survivability of mankind. That is why genocide is wrong, because it makes the survival of our species impossible. On the otherhand, so does pacifism.

So did that make any sense or was it just a bunch of pseudo-scientific bullshit?

No, that makes sense.

What I am essentially saying is that morality is a human construct to measure the evolutionary advisability of something. Like temperature is a human construct to measure the movement of atoms.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:34:37 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Society exists to defend the defenseless...

Are you religious?

To an evolutionist, that thought is anathema. It goes against nature in every way. Such a society is an unnatural creation.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:37:13 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The truth is to a certain degree this guy is right. Without using religious conviction you can't "prove" anything is wrong. I've had this argument with people many times, you say such and such is wrong because it hurts someone, and they then ask you, "Why?" This game continues until you can't prove eating an icecream cone is any different from raping a child. However, I still disagree on a practical level. As far as I am concerned man is a product of evolution (yea, I know, that is another threat) If the species of mankind is to survive (which I think anyone would agree is in out intrest) it must use the appropriot level of violence. As man evolved the very violent which disrupted society were killed off. Likewise, those were too submissive and left us vulnerable were killed off too. Today man is more "fit," a healthy medium of violence. I would say that the murder of innocents and genocide are levels of violence that make us less fit because they lead to more violence which eventually wipes us out. Therefore, murderers (on any scale) take away from the survivability of mankind. That is why genocide is wrong, because it makes the survival of our species impossible. On the otherhand, so does pacifism.

So did that make any sense or was it just a bunch of pseudo-scientific bullshit?

No, that makes sense.

What I am essentially saying is that morality is a human construct to measure the evolutionary advisability of something. Like temperature is a human construct to measure the movement of atoms.

I agree. It is simply in us to make judgements. It comes with the ability to think. Too much reason though, leads to over-confidence in "knowledge" about such abstract ideas as morality, justice, truth...and right and wrong.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:39:32 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Cat's do not kill mice to kill them they are simply playing with them, the mice themselves are very fragile and die and accidental death.

But lions certainly kill other lions, simply because they don't want them around...

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:40:00 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Society exists to defend the defenseless...

Are you religious?

To an evolutionist, that thought is anathema. It goes against nature in every way. Such a society is an unnatural creation.

I am religious.
An evolutionist would agree that an organism worth having around must reproduce. As stated earlier, the most defenseless in society are children. If we do not defend them, then our genes die out.
To defend our families against organized groups we must, as well, organize. That is how society developed and the societal norms reflect the evolutionary demands.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:41:05 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Why is genocide wrong? Why is removing a human population from existence wrong in all cases, if doing so would benefit you/your country?

Just a simple answer will suffice, but just to save time and effort, I am not asking the religious people here this question. Their reasoning is obvious, and I have no desire to debate religious doctrine.

So for those without an organized religious foundation, why is genocide wrong in all cases?

Someone just read Nietzche and thought it was profound.

How trite.
Is this a phase you're going through?

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:42:36 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Society exists to defend the defenseless...

Are you religious?

To an evolutionist, that thought is anathema. It goes against nature in every way. Such a society is an unnatural creation.

I am religious.
An evolutionist would agree that an organism worth having around must reproduce. As stated earlier, the most defenseless in society are children. If we do not defend them, then our genes die out.
To defend our families against organized groups we must, as well, organize. That is how society developed and the societal norms reflect the evolutionary demands.

As a religious person though, you doubtless believe that every human has intrinsic value, by virtue of being human.

By "the defensless" I was not including members of the family unit. I was seeing it in a more modern democratic sense.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:44:05 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Society exists to defend the defenseless...

Are you religious?

To an evolutionist, that thought is anathema. It goes against nature in every way. Such a society is an unnatural creation.

I am religious.
An evolutionist would agree that an organism worth having around must reproduce. As stated earlier, the most defenseless in society are children. If we do not defend them, then our genes die out.
To defend our families against organized groups we must, as well, organize. That is how society developed and the societal norms reflect the evolutionary demands.

I agree with you here, there are many cases where defending the defenseless can be in the evolutionary best intrest of society.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:47:25 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Society exists to defend the defenseless...

Are you religious?

To an evolutionist, that thought is anathema. It goes against nature in every way. Such a society is an unnatural creation.

I am religious.
An evolutionist would agree that an organism worth having around must reproduce. As stated earlier, the most defenseless in society are children. If we do not defend them, then our genes die out.
To defend our families against organized groups we must, as well, organize. That is how society developed and the societal norms reflect the evolutionary demands.

As a religious person though, you doubtless believe that every human has intrinsic value, by virtue of being human.

By "the defensless" I was not including members of the family unit. I was seeing it in a more modern democratic sense.

How to phrase this.
I am in the military and been around (to quote LTC Slade, US Army Retired).
I have seen too many children to not see that every life starts off inherently valuable and worth saving. It hurts me to know that children are killed around the world because of who their parents are.
I would like nothing more than these types of slaughters to end but realize that I am powerless to do so.
I also realize that as a society if we were to attempt to do so we would ultimatley fail at defending my own children and so I must make that logical determination that some may have to go undefended (by me at least)

But yes, each child is born with an inherent worth and I do believe in the "divine spark" of humanity which is lost when a person decides to take another's life, liberty and property.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:48:13 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Why is genocide wrong? Why is removing a human population from existence wrong in all cases, if doing so would benefit you/your country?

Just a simple answer will suffice, but just to save time and effort, I am not asking the religious people here this question. Their reasoning is obvious, and I have no desire to debate religious doctrine.

So for those without an organized religious foundation, why is genocide wrong in all cases?

Someone just read Nietzche and thought it was profound.

How trite.
Is this a phase you're going through?

I first read Nietzsche 9 years ago, and yes, it had a profound effect on me. In getting my BA in philosophy he was my main philosopher of interest, as well as existentialism in general.

I don't know that I would call him trite though. For better or worse, he had a profound effect on modern thought.

Have you ever read anything by him?

I hope all is well with you in Iraq.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:48:28 AM EDT

[#46]

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.

So you must be pretty happy with the events in Dafur right about now right? You know 70,000 dead and all, they could probably teach Milosevic a thing or two about how to run a genocide campaign. But it's in their own country so it's all good right?

I am not condoning genocide. I am simply posing a theoretical question.

But you are partly correct. I have no problem personally with what happens in Dafur.

Wow, your mind IS warped. By not opposing it you ARE condoning it. If your 6 year old picks up a cigarette and starts smoking it infront of you and you just watch, you are condoning that behavior. It's called passively condoning. Condoning something need not be an active action. If you have no problem with what is going on in Dafur, then you are condoning it.

Ok, so I by your logic.. As long as Hitler stuck to exteriminating millions of jews in his own country only and did not invade any other country, that would be fine and dandy. No one else's business.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:48:57 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Why is genocide wrong? Why is removing a human population from existence wrong in all cases, if doing so would benefit you/your country?

Just a simple answer will suffice, but just to save time and effort, I am not asking the religious people here this question. Their reasoning is obvious, and I have no desire to debate religious doctrine.

So for those without an organized religious foundation, why is genocide wrong in all cases?

Someone just read Nietzche and thought it was profound.

How trite.
Is this a phase you're going through?

Nietsche is profound. Profoundly wrong. But you can not dismiss his arguments with a haughty wave of the hand. Meet them head on and prove their stupidity.

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:50:06 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If genocide is an acceptable form of political and social control the human race does not deserve to be exist.

Thank God genocide is not acceptable to civilized decent human beings.

Why is it not acceptable to civilized, decent human beings?

If you do not know why you have a problem.

Well, it appears to me that if you are not capable of telling me, then you have the same problem I have...

Why are you depending upon us for a satisfactory answer? You seem resistant to our explanations about why wiping out a people based upon their race is a bad thing. How about some introspection and thoughts from you? How about some Devil's Advocate arguments about WHY one would want to do that?

Granted, such arguments would probably get your ass banned and normally rightly so, but I detect no real racist agenda behind your philosophizing.

Butif you want to philosophize, about something, genocide's a pretty bad subject to do it on. Mainly because there's no real questioningthat it is a bad thing on its face. If you cant see that, all you're doing is kicking up dust, then complaining you cant see. Know what I am saying?

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:50:45 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why is genocide wrong? Why is removing a human population from existence wrong in all cases, if doing so would benefit you/your country?

Just a simple answer will suffice, but just to save time and effort, I am not asking the religious people here this question. Their reasoning is obvious, and I have no desire to debate religious doctrine.

So for those without an organized religious foundation, why is genocide wrong in all cases?

Someone just read Nietzche and thought it was profound.

How trite.
Is this a phase you're going through?

I first read Nietzsche 9 years ago, and yes, it had a profound effect on me. In getting my BA in philosophy he was my main philosopher of interest, as well as existentialism in general.

I don't know that I would call him trite though. For better or worse, he had a profound effect on modern thought.

Have you ever read anything by him?

I hope all is well with you in Iraq.

I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT!

I ALWAYS have this arguement with philosophy majors!

Posted: 3/11/2006 7:50:45 AM EDT

[#50]

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.

So you must be pretty happy with the events in Dafur right about now right? You know 70,000 dead and all, they could probably teach Milosevic a thing or two about how to run a genocide campaign. But it's in their own country so it's all good right?

I am not condoning genocide. I am simply posing a theoretical question.

But you are partly correct. I have no problem personally with what happens in Dafur.

Wow, your mind IS warped. By not opposing it you ARE condoning it. If your 6 year old picks up a cigarette and starts smoking it infront of you and you just watch, you are condoning that behavior. If you have no problem with what is going on in Dafur, then you are condoning it.

Ok, so I by your logic.. As long as Hitler stuck to exteriminating millions of jews in his own country only and did not invade any other country, that would be fine and dandy. No one else's business.

In that regard, he would be joined by FDR and Winston Churchill. Also by every other European leader. NOBODY cared what Hitler was doing to the jews.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Genocide (Page 2 of 8)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us