Turkish ?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It seems to me that 'genocide' has come to mean merely 'doing unpleasant things to'.

Yup, there must be some sort of term for this - where a word has taken on a bad association that is universally agreed is bad, and then gets applied to ever-more dubious cases until it loses all meaning.

Genocide, racism, colonialism ...

the term used is either inflation of deflation of meaning I think. same as with money and value :p

what about to debase its meaning or diminution ?

those will do too I guess.
words enough.

[Josquius]

So have you.

No I haven't. I posted quite a normal reply then you came in and in a rude way decided to tell me I didn't have a clue what I was talking about.
If you believed that you really could have chosen your wording better then I too would have been more civil in pointing you were wrong.

Repeating unsupported assertions doesn't make them more credible.

Repeating fully supported facts however doesn't hurt.

So you concede the point about "lining people up and shooting them?"  Wise.

Aha, if that's all you need then you'll find plenty of it. Check out the links I gave you last time and do some searching of your own.
Nope. Did the research, read your links (two of which agreed with me, one of which was ambivalent (on old court case remarking on a policy of thirty years ago, and supported by a single claimant who was four years old at the time), and two of which were not applicable).  You haven't begun to make your argument yet.

1: None of the links agreed with you at all.
2: I noted myself that one of them was a bit crappy, it was just the first thing I found since I'm not going to give up my days for you.
3: You're missing the point on that one about the guy who was four at the time. Its been taking seriously enough that the Spanish are taking the matter to court. This article on it mentions three witnesses at least http://www.faluninfo.net/article/609/

My argument has been fully made yet you are ignoring it.

:rolleye
:rolles: You are no0t saying the opposite of what I am saying, and you reconirm it one sentence after you deny it!

What?
Of course I'm saying the opposite. Its not genocide but according to the rules it could technically be classed as such.

Of course one can find many cases of people yelling "genocide" when the technical definition isn't met.  I pointed out two cases in the links you provided (but apparently didn't read).
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia.html is one on the Cambodian genocide, which clearly was not "technicall" genocide because it wasn't aimed at a specific "national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."

A interesting point here is that the Soviet guy in the UN specifically had mention of political groups removed from the definition for his own purposes.
So yeah, it is true that killing people for that reason technically isn't genocide.
That's irrelevant though, it's not what's going on in China.

http://www.int-review.org/terr35a.htmll is someone "yelling genocide" about a brutal  attack in Iraq under Huseein, but notes that the regime's actions were triggered by a report that the target had been taken over by rebel Kurds (thus presenting a non-"technically genocidal" motive for the attack).

Now the Kurds are quite a different matter. It was Arabs killing Kurds and attempting to wipe out parts of the population.

I could go on and on, and you know it.

Who cares?
Its not the issue.

Except that you have failed repeatedly to demonstrate that they are committing those acts for the motives necessary, and this is what is "beyond argument."

You're the one making the argument here. Its up to you to show that they aren't.

Laws don't work the way you think they do.  One cannot get a conviction for genocide for the killing of a single person.  It is you who is "completely ignoring all rationality and just sticking to the wording" in this argument.  I have said nothing of the sort.

Talk about strawmen.
Read what I said, I never said in any way that this was actually the case. You have to admit though that reading the law and ignoring all rational reason (yes, I admit it, I am doing that for this sentence, its the whole point of it) it can well be read that way.

Ah, the old "this doesn't need evidence beause it is a fact" argument.  I bet your fellow-scientists love hearing those arguments from you! 

Most scientists do not pick arguments with you on such basis as 'OMG the word overwrite doesn't mean overwrite!' as you are doing.

You say "yes but no?"  WTF?  Are you going to argue 9with evidence) that China is "technically" committing genocide, or not?

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

I wouldn't be that daft.  Maybe you are daft enough to argue that; be my guest.

These days  that would be a iffy argument, France is changing. But two centuries ago that wouldn't at all be a daft argument. The French undoubtedly followed a policy that under the modern UN definition could technically be called genocide.

Stricken as non-relevant.  Non of these acts are "technical genocide."

That is very relevant. It is the entire point we are meant to be discussing here. Those acts ARE genocide according to the UN definition.

I'm going to ignore a lot now as long quote chains are annoying and none of it is relevant.

But not "technical genocide" (iaw the convention), which is what we are addressing.

Prove it.
I have my evidence which clearly covers that:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

What's yours?

I have read it and disagree, and note that you have completely evaded answering my question.. 

Pot...kettle....

I wasn't using that as proof. I was posting it in the hope you would understand how he explains it where you don't when I do.

I understand what he is saying (though I think his whole concept of "democide" is absurd and pretentious). The problem isn't that I don't understand what you are saying (I have clearly demonstrated a much better grasp of the core issue here than you), it is that I disagree.[/quote]
You have no grasp of the core issue at all. If you did you wouldn't disagree, it's not really something that can be disagreed with unless you are arguing against the authority of the UN or some such (which you're not).

So your argument is that the exact wording of the Convention would, in your opinion, create a genocide if one neo-Nazi killed on black person?  That's it?  That is your whole argument?

Please find me an authoritative source that would agree with this interpretation.  I would be fascinated to read it.

Now that's how you're meant to make a strawman. Taking the other person's argument to a extreme. It took my help (well...I gave it to you) but you got there.

As I said myself that is a silly interpretation. It is however technically valid according to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm with the exception that this is meant to apply on an international level rather than between individuals.

If you're understanding this though then you're close to understanding that China in fact is technically in breach of the laws.

I think it is not nearly as broad as you claim, and your Dr. Rummel is not arguing that the Americans committed "technical genocide" against Hawaiians, so appealing to him is done in vain.

Read it for yourself. There are no lower limits to what constitutes a part.
And yes, that article did say exactly that according to the strictly legal definition of the word there was a Hawaiian genocide.

This way of viewing genocide has become so ingrained that it seems utterly false to say, for example, that the United States committed genocide against ethnic Hawaiians by forcing their children to study English and behave according to American norms and values. Yet, in the legal view of genocide, this is arguably true. The equating of genocide with the killing people because of their indelible group membership I will label the common meaning of genocide.

Can you stop now please? You've got no argument and are just going round in circles insisting a spade isn't a spade.

[Razgovory]

Grumbler wins the argument due to his being American and likely taller.

[grumbler]

No I haven't. I posted quite a normal reply then you came in and in a rude way decided to tell me I didn't have a clue what I was talking about.

Do a word search of all pages of this thread.  the one person who has used the phrase "[didn't] have a clue" is... you guessed it, you! 

Repeating fully supported facts however doesn't hurt.

Again, repeating that you have substantiated your claims 9when you have not even begun to adress motive, for instance) is futile.

3: You're missing the point on that one about the guy who was four at the time. Its been taking seriously enough that the Spanish are taking the matter to court. This article on it mentions three witnesses at least http://www.faluninfo.net/article/609/

None of the "three witnesses" are testifying about genocide.  They are all testifying about torture in a case of "an ongoing investigation into allegations of torture and genocide."

My argument has been fully made yet you are ignoring it.

Yur argument hasn't begun to be made, and you conveniently ignore that fact by trivializing genocide through generalizing a few nasty thing the Chinese thug government does as "genocide."

Of course I'm saying the opposite. Its not genocide but according to the rules it could technically be classed as such.

No, it couldn't, as several of your own cites pointed out.

A interesting point here is that the Soviet guy in the UN specifically had mention of political groups removed from the definition for his own purposes.
So yeah, it is true that killing people for that reason technically isn't genocide.
That's irrelevant though, it's not what's going on in China.

Stricken as non-responsive.  You are evading the issue.

Now the Kurds are quite a different matter. It was Arabs killing Kurds and attempting to wipe out parts of the population.

And yet people still cried "genocide" when it was not legally genocide - which is the point.

And I talke it that, since you snipped out the Cambodian example, that one is conceded as well?

Who cares?
Its not the issue.

It is the issue you raised, and I have decisively answered it.  The "popular conception" of genocide is broader than the legal one.

You're the one making the argument here. Its up to you to show that they aren't.

Nope.  One is presumed innocent of violating the genocide convention ("the law") unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty.  Yu are arguing that the Chinese are guilty.  Make the case.

Laws don't work the way you think they do.  One cannot get a conviction for genocide for the killing of a single person.  It is you who is "completely ignoring all rationality and just sticking to the wording" in this argument.  I have said nothing of the sort.

Talk about strawmen.

There you go, whining about "strawmen" when I am quoting your very words! 

Read what I said, I never said in any way that this was actually the case. You have to admit though that reading the law and ignoring all rational reason (yes, I admit it, I am doing that for this sentence, its the whole point of it) it can well be read that way.

Why would one want to ignore reason when discussing a law?  How do you think doing this 9and bragging of it) advances your case?

Most scientists do not pick arguments with you on such basis as 'OMG the word overwrite doesn't mean overwrite!' as you are doing.

See, now this is a strawman.  I never said any of those words.

You say "yes but no?"  WTF?  Are you going to argue 9with evidence) that China is "technically" committing genocide, or not?

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

Stricken as non-responsive.

These days  that would be a iffy argument, France is changing. But two centuries ago that wouldn't at all be a daft argument. The French undoubtedly followed a policy that under the modern UN definition could technically be called genocide.

Feel free to make this case, if you think it important.  Personally, I think it is another dodge of the issues, but I will grant you the benefit of the doubt.

That is very relevant. It is the entire point we are meant to be discussing here. Those acts ARE genocide according to the UN definition.

Mere argument by assertion. I assert that http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm trumps your assertions.

I'm going to ignore a lot now as long quote chains are annoying and none of it is relevant.

That's wise, as most of it was you just dodging the issue some more.

Prove it.

Are you sure you are a scientist?  Most of us don't even consider challenging someone to prove a negative.  We know it cannot be done.

I have my evidence which clearly covers that:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

What's yours?

You have cited my proof.  The acts you cite were not demonstrably committed with the necessary intent to violate the law, and in the absence of evidence innocence is presumed.
And, of course, the acts of "silenced minority leaders, destroyed cultural artifacts and seriously harmed many members" isn't even in the convention.
So, that's two factual arguments against one unsupported assertion.

(snipped a bunch of ad hominim and "if you understood the core issue you wouldn't debate it" bleats)

Now that's how you're meant to make a strawman. Taking the other person's argument to a extreme. It took my help (well...I gave it to you) but you got there.

WTF?    I used your exact argument in your exact word and you claim that I am thus making a strawman?  You don't know what a strawman is.  Look at the one by you I pointed out, and you will see the difference.

As I said myself that is a silly interpretation. It is however technically valid according to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm with the exception that this is meant to apply on an international level rather than between individuals.

No, a case of one person killing another = genocide is not "technically valid" as several of the understandings in the treaty and case law make clear.

If you're understanding this though then you're close to understanding that China in fact is technically in breach of the laws.

I think it is clear who understands this. 
McGill University had a conference http://efchr.mcgill.ca/WhatIsGenocide_en.php?menu=2 dicussing this, and agreed with me:

The defining characteristic which separates the crime of genocide from other ordinary crimes is the special intent, or dolus specialis, to destroy all or part of a group. As the ICTY stated in 1999 in Jelisic, "Genocide is characterised by two legal ingredients according to the terms of Article 4 of the Statute: [1] the material element of the offence, constituted by one or several acts enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 4; [2] the mens rea of the offence, consisting of the special intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Theoretically, then, the murder of a single person could constitute an attempt at genocide if the aggressor's intent was to kill that person as part of larger plan to destroy a group.

The phrase "in whole or in part" has been the subject of much discussion. In the 2001 Krstic case, the ICTY found that the mass killing of approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica constituted genocide. Reflecting on the meaning of "in part," the tribunal stated: "[T]he part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." They concluded that while the number of individuals targeted is the "necessary and important starting point," one must also consider the number of victims in relation to the overall size of the entire group, as well as the prominence or importance of the targeted individuals within the entire group. In Krstic it was found that even though only Muslim men in one town were targeted, the number of victims was large and their significance was such that, to a certain extent, they represented the wider Bosnian Muslim community.

I invite your citation of a similarly authoritative source to support your contention that a single person killing another single person as a "hate crime" is "technically genocide" 9though, note, that if the killling is done as part of a larger campaign to kill a "substantial part" of the targeted population it would, indeed, be an act of genocide).

Read it for yourself. There are no lower limits to what constitutes a part.
And yes, that article did say exactly that according to the strictly legal definition of the word there was a Hawaiian genocide.

It is clear that you haven't done any research, relying strictly on your own interpretation of the law.  And Dr. Rummel states that "in the legal view of genocide, this is arguably true."  He doesn't argue that it is true, he merely notes (for rhetorical purposes) that someone, even knowing it "seems utterly false," might argue so.  Does he actually know you? 

Can you stop now please? You've got no argument and are just going round in circles insisting a spade isn't a spade.

  Can I stop spanking your silly arguments?  No.  I am enjoying it too much.  You may stop being spanked at any time by stopping the spankworthy statements.

[Josquius]

Yur argument hasn't begun to be made, and you conveniently ignore that fact by trivializing genocide through generalizing a few nasty thing the Chinese thug government does as "genocide."

...
No, from the start it's been my argument that not just any nasty thing equals genocide.
According to the official definition however it technically is.

No, it couldn't, as several of your own cites pointed out.

Like what?

Stricken as non-responsive.  You are evading the issue.

Of course I'm not.

And yet people still cried "genocide" when it was not legally genocide - which is the point.

No its not the point. Its nothing to do with the point.

It is the issue you raised, and I have decisively answered it.  The "popular conception" of genocide is broader than the legal one.

No its not.
They both have areas where they do not overlap however the legal one covers a broader albeit fuzzier area.

Nope.  One is presumed innocent of violating the genocide convention ("the law") unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty.  Yu are arguing that the Chinese are guilty.  Make the case.

Nope.
I said technically the Turkish guy is right (probably unintentionally on his part) which according to the official rules he clearly is. This was the base statement.
You then challenged this.
We're not in court, its a discussion, its up to you to prove me wrong.

There you go, whining about "strawmen" when I am quoting your very words! 

Lovely selective quoting.

Why would one want to ignore reason when discussing a law?  How do you think doing this 9and bragging of it) advances your case?

Are you so narrow minded?
One must always examine all possibilities. The wording of the law clearly does state that this is true. No one in their right mind would ever claim that this is what it actually means however if we ignore reason and just go entirely off the wording that's clearly what it says.
That the wording allows for such an absurd case to be made really doesn't bode well for cases that could fall anywhere near what its actually talking about.

See, now this is a strawman.  I never said any of those words.

Of course you haven't. Your entire argument is based around the same lines as that example however.

Feel free to make this case, if you think it important.  Personally, I think it is another dodge of the issues, but I will grant you the benefit of the doubt.

1: Its not the issue at hand
2: You'd just ignore it even if it was entirely relevant.

Mere argument by assertion. I assert that http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm trumps your assertions.

Very good. Point me.

Are you sure you are a scientist?  Most of us don't even consider challenging someone to prove a negative.  We know it cannot be done.

You are the one making the assertion though.
I have my proof, the UN document, if you wish to challenge it then please prove how it is wrong. Don't worry, you don't need to disprove it 100%. Just beyond reasonable doubt.

You have cited my proof.  The acts you cite were not demonstrably committed with the necessary intent to violate the law, and in the absence of evidence innocence is presumed.

Very few crimes are committed to purposefully break the law, that's just a side-effect.

And, of course, the acts of "silenced minority leaders, destroyed cultural artifacts and seriously harmed many members" isn't even in the convention.
So, that's two factual arguments against one unsupported assertion.

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

What do those fall into if not these three?

WTF?    I used your exact argument in your exact word and you claim that I am thus making a strawman?  You don't know what a strawman is.  Look at the one by you I pointed out, and you will see the difference.

No I didn't. Stop quoting selectively and please read it in context.

No, a case of one person killing another = genocide is not "technically valid" as several of the understandings in the treaty and case law make clear.

Point to where in the treaty it says this please.
In broader law you may have a point but meh, what is actually happening isn't just one person being killed. How many people does there need to be for them legally to be regarded as a group? 2? 3? 100? As those are met.

If you're understanding this though then you're close to understanding that China in fact is technically in breach of the laws.I think it is clear who understands this. 
McGill University had a conference http://efchr.mcgill.ca/WhatIsGenocide_en.php?menu=2 dicussing this, and agreed with me:

The defining characteristic which separates the crime of genocide from other ordinary crimes is the special intent, or dolus specialis, to destroy all or part of a group. As the ICTY stated in 1999 in Jelisic, "Genocide is characterised by two legal ingredients according to the terms of Article 4 of the Statute: [1] the material element of the offence, constituted by one or several acts enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 4; [2] the mens rea of the offence, consisting of the special intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Theoretically, then, the murder of a single person could constitute an attempt at genocide if the aggressor's intent was to kill that person as part of larger plan to destroy a group.

The phrase "in whole or in part" has been the subject of much discussion. In the 2001 Krstic case, the ICTY found that the mass killing of approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica constituted genocide. Reflecting on the meaning of "in part," the tribunal stated: "[T]he part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." They concluded that while the number of individuals targeted is the "necessary and important starting point," one must also consider the number of victims in relation to the overall size of the entire group, as well as the prominence or importance of the targeted individuals within the entire group. In Krstic it was found that even though only Muslim men in one town were targeted, the number of victims was large and their significance was such that, to a certain extent, they represented the wider Bosnian Muslim community.

Wow, many of the same arguments I've been using are used there and I'd never even seen that. Thanks for that Grumbler, nice to see you being constructive.

Very interesting that they enhance upon the horrible wording of in part. Still two issues remain here.
1: These people aren't authoritative. They know their stuff certainly and a future law may well be built on what they have decided but for now what they've said doesn't matter when purely discussing the theory.
2: How do they define a 'group'. That the part must be substantial narrows down things there but what defines a people remains a broad term. A family could in many ways be counted as a 'people' (and indeed in some parts of the world is in practice)

I invite your citation of a similarly authoritative source to support your contention that a single person killing another single person as a "hate crime" is "technically genocide" 9though, note, that if the killling is done as part of a larger campaign to kill a "substantial part" of the targeted population it would, indeed, be an act of genocide).

[/quote]

You've just given my citation. Theoretically this hate crime is genocide.

It is clear that you haven't done any research, relying strictly on your own interpretation of the law.  And Dr. Rummel states that "in the legal view of genocide, this is arguably true."  He doesn't argue that it is true, he merely notes (for rhetorical purposes) that someone, even knowing it "seems utterly false," might argue so.  Does he actually know you? 

Much the same as I was doing.  Rather than just saying 'Turks are dumb!' I noted technically the law was breached.
But still you decided to launch a argument.
You can't fight a ghost.

  Can I stop spanking your silly arguments?  No.  I am enjoying it too much.  You may stop being spanked at any time by stopping the spankworthy statements.

Which planet are you on?
You're the one coming up with silly arguments and I keep answering them. You keep dodging answering those which you feel show you to be wrong however.
If anyone is 'spanked' its quite clearly you.
I'm very tempted to just reply to you with one big 'stricken as non-responsive' as by your own definitions that is what 90% of what you are doing is.

[grumbler]

...
No, from the start it's been my argument that not just any nasty thing equals genocide.
According to the official definition however it technically is.

So far, your evidence that China is "technically" committing genocide today consists of:
(1) A Tibetan man who says that 30 years ago, when he was four, he found out that the Chinese were taken women off to prison camps to reduce the number of Tibetans;
(2) A man was beaten in a Chinese prison;
(3) an Australian whose husband was tortured to death
(4) a woman who spent a year in a labor camp after being abducted from her home
(5) China has silenced minority leaders
(6) China hasdestroyed cultural artifacts and
(7) China has seriously harmed many members [presumably of minorities]

Have I left anything out?  that doesn't even add up to the second specific in the Convention, and ignores the first entirely (other than the 30-year-later recollections of a four-year-old).

Like what?

I already did this once.  Maybe you will read it this time:

http://warcrimes.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/07/11/chinas-ethnic-policies-in-xinjiang-uighur-genocide-ethnic-cleansing-or-what/  (this one I can agree with quite a bit, it goes beyond the strict UN definitions of destroying parts of peoples equaling genocide and says genocide is only trying to get rid of the lot. They don't really come to this conclusion in a nicely sourced way though which is unfortunate.)

Actually, this one directly supports my position and opposed yours:

First, it is important to note that they do not constitute genocide.  Or, at least, not in the way it is defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Thanks for walking onto that land mine.

http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/govngo/govngo2.html (quite a bit of evidence here)

Uh, this is from 1960. We are talking about now.  In any case, this one concluded that:

The COMMITTEE did not find that there was sufficient proof of the destruction of Tibetans as a race, nation or ethnic group as such by methods that can be regarded as genocide in international law.

So, this group found that there was 'genocide' but not "technical genocide."  That's another one for me.

No its not the point. Its nothing to do with the point

.
It is directly to your point that

I very much doubt you would find any situations in the world where anyone will yell genocide but it couldn't be technically termed such under the broad UN definitions.

I found several, and now that your point is disproven you want to argue that your point has "nothing to do with the point."  Which is it?

No its not.  They both have areas where they do not overlap however the legal one covers a broader albeit fuzzier area.

Mere assertion again.  Give me one cite from an authoritative source that says that the legal definition of genocide is broader than the popular one.  i have given you numerous cites to the contrary 9and used two of your to demonstrate the same thing).

Nope.
I said technically the Turkish guy is right (probably unintentionally on his part) which according to the official rules he clearly is. This was the base statement.

This was arguing from a conclusion.  He is not "clearly" right and in fact you have amassed no evidence (beyond a 4-year-old's conclusions) to support this statement.

We're not in court, its a discussion, its up to you to prove me wrong.

Done.  repeatedly.

Are you so narrow minded?
One must always examine all possibilities. The wording of the law clearly does state that this is true. No one in their right mind would ever claim that this is what it actually means however if we ignore reason and just go entirely off the wording that's clearly what it says.

So you base your argument on the most narrow possible construction of "part of" (an argument rejected by legal scholors like the McGill ones I cited) and accuse me of being narrow-minded?  Ad homs are one thing, but patently absurd ad homs are another.

See, now this is a strawman.  I never said any of those words.

Of course you haven't. Your entire argument is based around the same lines as that example however.

  Ah, no.  Please use my actual arguments, and not strawmen.  And don't try to defend your strawmen by repeating them and insisting that that must be my argument.  My argument never once used anything like the concept of 'OMG the word overwrite doesn't mean overwrite!' If you want to debate my arguments, use my arguments, not the ones you set up yourself because they are so trivially defeated.

1: Its not the issue at hand
2: You'd just ignore it even if it was entirely relevant.

So it was a dodge all along! 

Very good. Point me.

You have used the UN Convention definition yourself.  Why do you need to be pointed there again?  Look in some older posts for a pointer.

You are the one making the assertion though.

Nope.  The assertion is "Technically what's going on in China is genocide."
Make your case.

I have my proof, the UN document, if you wish to challenge it then please prove how it is wrong. Don't worry, you don't need to disprove it 100%. Just beyond reasonable doubt.

I have my proof, the UN document, if you wish to challenge it then please prove how it is wrong. Don't worry, you don't need to disprove it 100%. Just beyond reasonable doubt.

Very few crimes are committed to purposefully break the law, that's just a side-effect.

Stricken as non-responsive.  The law does not require intent to purposefully break the law.  Look at the McGill cite for what is needed to demonstrate motive.  Good luck in your endeavor.

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

What do those fall into if not these three?

They fall into none of those groups.

Point to where in the treaty it says this please.

I don't need to point it out in the treaty.  We are talking law here, and law is interpreted, not literal.  Se the McGill cite I gave you.

I

n broader law you may have a point but meh, what is actually happening isn't just one person being killed. How many people does there need to be for them legally to be regarded as a group? 2? 3? 100? As those are met.

See the McGill cite: "[T]he part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole."  I submit that you have yet to demonstrate that this standard has been met.

Wow, many of the same arguments I've been using are used there and I'd never even seen that. Thanks for that Grumbler, nice to see you being constructive.

I have been constructive and using direct quotations from the works I cite all along.  You have failed to do this (except to repeat quotes I have already made).

Since the "how many does it take" standard has been established, are you ready to back off from the "one man killing another is technically genocide" argument?

Very interesting that they enhance upon the horrible wording of in part. Still two issues remain here.
1: These people aren't authoritative. They know their stuff certainly and a future law may well be built on what they have decided but for now what they've said doesn't matter when purely discussing the theory.

They are quoting the ICTY!  How much more authoritative can you get?

2: How do they define a 'group'. That the part must be substantial narrows down things there but what defines a people remains a broad term. A family could in many ways be counted as a 'people' (and indeed in some parts of the world is in practice)

Look at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

You've just given my citation. Theoretically this hate crime is genocide.

Please respond with a citation, not a vague statement that a citation was given.

Much the same as I was doing.  Rather than just saying 'Turks are dumb!' I noted technically the law was breached.
But still you decided to launch a argument.

You made a statement of fact that was incorrect.  I pointed out that your statement was false, and we have debated it.  So far, you have made no attempt to demonstrate either element of the proofs necessary (let alone proof beyond a reasonable dount) and instead have thrown up trivialities.

Keep on, if you wish.

Which planet are you on?

Ah, the ad hom again!

You're the one coming up with silly arguments and I keep answering them. You keep dodging answering those which you feel show you to be wrong however.

Name a single silly argument I have made.  I won't ask for one as silly as the "a neo-Nazi shooting a black man is technically genocide" howler. 

If anyone is 'spanked' its quite clearly you.

Pretty clearly not.

I'm very tempted to just reply to you with one big 'stricken as non-responsive' as by your own definitions that is what 90% of what you are doing is.

Nope.  I am responding directly to your statements with statements, quotations, and citations.  You have completely dodged the issue of demonstrating intent, have completely dodged the issue of Uighur population increases, completely dodged the issue of Uighurs having privileged access to universities, and completely dodged repeated attempt to get you to cite authoritative sources to support your contentions.

I enjoy watching you squirm, though, so I'm not complaining.

[DGuller]

This thread is worse than genocide.

[grumbler]

This thread is worse than genocide.

[Siege]You are worse than genocide![/Siege]

[Josquius]

So far, your evidence that China is "technically" committing genocide today consists of:
(1) A Tibetan man who says that 30 years ago, when he was four, he found out that the Chinese were taken women off to prison camps to reduce the number of Tibetans;
(2) A man was beaten in a Chinese prison;
(3) an Australian whose husband was tortured to death
(4) a woman who spent a year in a labor camp after being abducted from her home
(5) China has silenced minority leaders
(6) China hasdestroyed cultural artifacts and
(7) China has seriously harmed many members [presumably of minorities]

Have I left anything out?  that doesn't even add up to the second specific in the Convention, and ignores the first entirely (other than the 30-year-later recollections of a four-year-old).

Stricken as unresponsive.

I already did this once.  Maybe you will read it this time:

None of your interpretations are valid to the point.

No its not the point. Its nothing to do with the point

.
It is directly to your point that

I very much doubt you would find any situations in the world where anyone will yell genocide but it couldn't be technically termed such under the broad UN definitions.

I found several, and now that your point is disproven you want to argue that your point has "nothing to do with the point."  Which is it?[/quote]
Aha, that's what you're talking about.
Well you see, that's not the point. Its not even a reply to something relevant to the point.
I very much doubt there are != there in no way definatly ever exists.
It was something I was unsure of though leaning against. My hunch was wrong but meh, it was just a hunch and its not the point.

Mere assertion again.  Give me one cite from an authoritative source that says that the legal definition of genocide is broader than the popular one.  i have given you numerous cites to the contrary 9and used two of your to demonstrate the same thing).

The UN document.
Yet again.
You know the link.

Done.  repeatedly.

Done. Never. Bar your weirdly placed argument against my hunch however.

So you base your argument on the most narrow possible construction of "part of" (an argument rejected by legal scholors like the McGill ones I cited) and accuse me of being narrow-minded?  Ad homs are one thing, but patently absurd ad homs are another.

The McGill scholars themselves agree with me.
You're just speaking blatant lies here.

Of course you haven't. Your entire argument is based around the same lines as that example however.

  Ah, no.  Please use my actual arguments, and not strawmen.  And don't try to defend your strawmen by repeating them and insisting that that must be my argument.  My argument never once used anything like the concept of 'OMG the word overwrite doesn't mean overwrite!' If you want to debate my arguments, use my arguments, not the ones you set up yourself because they are so trivially defeated.[/quote]
What arguments of mine are so trivially defeated? My argument (if you really must say I have one thats what it is. Singular) still stands, undefeated.
To the other part of it:

Technically I don't think you know what the word "genocide" technically means.

I have already looked it up.  Technically, genocide must include the following elements:
(1) intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such
(2) acts carried out to bring about such intent:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

See The UN's Convention of Genocide http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/gncnvntn.htm

Technically, neither the first nor the second elements of this definition have been met by the Chinese government nor any group in China.

etc....

You're reading the UN convention and saying it doesn't say what it says.

So it was a dodge all along! 

err what?

You have used the UN Convention definition yourself.  Why do you need to be pointed there again?  Look in some older posts for a pointer.

No. Point -> me. Since you seem to be so obsessed that this is a contest I felt like using some of the language of one.

Nope.  The assertion is "Technically what's going on in China is genocide."
Make your case.

I have. As I and your McGill article say technically all kinds of trivial activities are genocide.
And your case?

They fall into none of those groups.

Killing != killing ?

I don't need to point it out in the treaty.  We are talking law here, and law is interpreted, not literal.  Se the McGill cite I gave you.

No we're not talking law. I should know as it was me who said it. I've no interest in law. We're talking about what it actually, ,literally says.

I have been constructive and using direct quotations from the works I cite all along.  You have failed to do this (except to repeat quotes I have already made).

Because you have been selectivly quoting. Ignoring the context in which the quotes were placed so as to obscure their meaning.

Since the "how many does it take" standard has been established, are you ready to back off from the "one man killing another is technically genocide" argument?

1: Thats not an argument. Its an explanation.
2: The McGill article != the UN article. Its nice insite which helps make the UN article less silly but it hasn't changed it.

They are quoting the ICTY!  How much more authoritative can you get?

The broader UN .
But thats not what I meant and you know it.

Look at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

That answers nothing, it makes things even vaguer yet again.
Why are you even trying to refute my observations on the article?

Please respond with a citation, not a vague statement that a citation was given.

Are you trying to annoy?

The defining characteristic which separates the crime of genocide from other ordinary crimes is the special intent, or dolus specialis, to destroy all or part of a group. As the ICTY stated in 1999 in Jelisic, "Genocide is characterised by two legal ingredients according to the terms of Article 4 of the Statute: [1] the material element of the offence, constituted by one or several acts enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 4; [2] the mens rea of the offence, consisting of the special intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Theoretically, then, the murder of a single person could constitute an attempt at genocide if the aggressor's intent was to kill that person as part of larger plan to destroy a group.

The phrase "in whole or in part" has been the subject of much discussion. In the 2001 Krstic case, the ICTY found that the mass killing of approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica constituted genocide. Reflecting on the meaning of "in part," the tribunal stated: "[T]he part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." They concluded that while the number of individuals targeted is the "necessary and important starting point," one must also consider the number of victims in relation to the overall size of the entire group, as well as the prominence or importance of the targeted individuals within the entire group. In Krstic it was found that even though only Muslim men in one town were targeted, the number of victims was large and their significance was such that, to a certain extent, they represented the wider Bosnian Muslim community.

You made a statement of fact that was incorrect.  I pointed out that your statement was false, and we have debated it.  So far, you have made no attempt to demonstrate either element of the proofs necessary (let alone proof beyond a reasonable dount) and instead have thrown up trivialities.

Because it IS a triviality

Ah, the ad hom again!

Yet again you reply to everything I say as if it were a argument....

You're the one coming up with silly arguments and I keep answering them. You keep dodging answering those which you feel show you to be wrong however.

Name a single silly argument I have made.  I won't ask for one as silly as the "a neo-Nazi shooting a black man is technically genocide" howler. 

If anyone is 'spanked' its quite clearly you.

Pretty clearly not.

Nope.  I am responding directly to your statements with statements, quotations, and citations.  You have completely dodged the issue of demonstrating intent, have completely dodged the issue of Uighur population increases, completely dodged the issue of Uighurs having privileged access to universities, and completely dodged repeated attempt to get you to cite authoritative sources to support your contentions.

I have addressed the Uighar population increases directly numerous times. I haven't dodged itat all.
Youv'e never said anything about Uighars in universities. And I don't see how that could be at all relevant.
I have cited the authoritive source on what the UN technically defines as genocide; The UN themselves.

I enjoy watching you squirm, though, so I'm not complaining.

Well. A few points here.
1: I'm not in any way squirming. You are being annoying and I am bored enough to reply.
2: That you somehow enjoy this 'thread worse than genocide' is really not a good argument for me to continue talking to you. If you're enjoying this then its in your interest to continue to be obstructive and not try and look for answers.

[Neil]

Countries are pledged to oppose genocide.  Countries do not oppose China's treatment of the Uighurs.  Therefore, that treatment cannot be genocide.

[grumbler]

Stricken as unresponsive.

Mine wasn't a response, it was a direct statement!  It is impossible for a statement made out of the blue to be "non-responsive!"   Squirm, baby, squirm.

By the way, does this sum up your evidence, or would you like to add something to it?:
(1) A Tibetan man who says that 30 years ago, when he was four, he found out that the Chinese were taken women off to prison camps to reduce the number of Tibetans;
(2) A man was beaten in a Chinese prison;
(3) an Australian whose husband was tortured to death
(4) a woman who spent a year in a labor camp after being abducted from her home
(5) China has silenced minority leaders
(6) China hasdestroyed cultural artifacts and
(7) China has seriously harmed many members [presumably of minorities]

None of your interpretations are valid to the point.

My responses quote and bold the very words of the articles.  Calling conclusions not valid doesn';t invalidate them merely by your say-so. Squirm, baby, squirm.

Aha, that's what you're talking about.
Well you see, that's not the point. Its not even a reply to something relevant to the point.
I very much doubt there are != there in no way definatly ever exists.

What is this supposed to mean?  You said there were not uch responses, I disproved your claim, therefor the common percption of genocide is broader than the legal one, directly contrary to your central tenet the China is "technically" guilty of genocide even if not "commonly-accepted definition-guilty." 

It was something I was unsure of though leaning against. My hunch was wrong but meh, it was just a hunch and its not the point.

It is directly to the point, which is why you now try to weasel out of it!

The UN document.
Yet again.
You know the link.

Stricken as non-responsive.  I ask again: give me one cite from an authoritative source that says that the legal definition of genocide is broader than the popular one.  The UN document does not say that at all.

The McGill scholars themselves agree with me.

I have cited specific extracts from the McGill document that support my argument.  You vaguely assert that they somehow support you but provide not a single specific example.  Squirm!

You're just speaking blatant lies here.

Now you are simply engaging in personal attacks.  How can my words be lies when I quote from the source, and yours be true when you refuse to quote from the source?

What arguments of mine are so trivially defeated?

  I never said that your arguments were trivially defeated.  Defeated, yes, but by using sources and citation, not stawmen and ad homs.

My argument (if you really must say I have one thats what it is. Singular) still stands, undefeated.

What argument is that?  You have a series of assertions, but no real argument.

No. Point -> me. Since you seem to be so obsessed that this is a contest I felt like using some of the language of one.

Oh, you are assigning yourself points of some sort.  Well, good for you.  Assign yourself as many as you like.  You don't need to tell everyone on the board when you do it, though, as nobody cares.

I have. As I and your McGill article say technically all kinds of trivial activities are genocide.

You have not entered any credible evidence to make your case yet, and the McGill article says nothing off the sort.  The word "trivial" doesn't appear in their document, nor the word "technically."  So, I think the accusation "you're just speaking blatant lies here" looks like a case of the biter bit, doesn't it?  Of course, you can find a quote from the document which actually says that, and proves me wrong, correct?

Killing != killing ?

Killing != killing ?

No we're not talking law. I should know as it was me who said it. I've no interest in law. We're talking about what it actually, ,literally says.

I am unsure what the point is, here.  Whether someone is "technically" guilty of a crime depends on how the law is interpreted.  This is basic stuff.  If you meant by "technically what's going on in China is genocide" something other than the law, then you should not have agreed to use the law as the standard.  You cannot at this point suddenly decide "we're not talking law" because talking law destroys your point!

Because you have been selectivly quoting. Ignoring the context in which the quotes were placed so as to obscure their meaning.

This is mere bleating.  If you can show that i am quoting out of context, then quote the context and show me wrong, don't just whine that I am doing it.

I suspect, however, that this bleating is just an involuntary result of your squirming.

I still await any quotes at all from authoritative sources that support any of your interpretations of the Convention.

2: The McGill article != the UN article. Its nice insite which helps make the UN article less silly but it hasn't changed it.

The McGill article (you should read it, really) quotes the ICTY, so that's what the law is.  ICTY pronouncements trump you unsupported assertions by so wide a margin it cannot be measured.

The broader UN .

What is a broader UN?  The current UN before it ate 4,000 pizzas?

Why are you even trying to refute my observations on the article?

I was unaware that you had made any observations on an "article."  Maybe you might want to re-make them.  I generally don't refute "observations" unless they are really arguments in disguise.  I just note that they are observations and not conclusions.

Are you trying to annoy?

No, I am trying to make you support your assertions. It is damned hard, but your squirming to avoid actually trying to muster a factual argument is amusing enough I will continue. Please, go ahead and cite a source, or quote the specifics from the McGill article and highlight the passages you think support your case.

Yet again you reply to everything I say as if it were a argument....

There is a difference between responding to arguments and engaging in

ad homs

.  Most people realize that debaters only engage in ad homs when they are beaten, which is why i simply point them out and do not engage in them myself.

I have addressed the Uighar population increases directly numerous times. I haven't dodged itat all.

No, you have not engaged the problem at all.  When there was a genocide in Germany, Jewish, gypsie, and Polish populations went down.  When there was one in Armenia, ditto.  Ditto for Rwandan Tutsis.  Your argument that numbers of people go up during a genocide is self-evident crap, and yet you blindly repeat it.  I suspect we know why.  Name one case of accepted homicide in which the numbers of people subjected to the genocide increased!

Youv'e never said anything about Uighars in universities. And I don't see how that could be at all relevant.

You don't think China's preference for Uighars in University admissions is evidence that there isn't a plan to kill off the Uighurs?  Why would a government spend education money on a people they are determined to annihilate?

I have cited the authoritive source on what the UN technically defines as genocide; The UN themselves.

The ICTY is part of the UN, and yet you reject their definition opf "part of."  You cannot have it both ways.  So, cite me a single authoritative source that supports your claim that the popular conception of genocide is more narrow than the legal one.

I'm not in any way squirming. You are being annoying and I am bored enough to reply.

Oh, yes you are! 

1. You avoid direct answers to almost all of my direct questions (instead squirming around claiming to have "answered it elsewhere" or "the UN document answers that" when both statements are untrue).

2.  You have absolutely refused to address the issue of proof motive, despite repeated requests, instead squirming around arguing that it is obvious or simply re-posting the convention.

3.  At every point at which your arguments have been decisively disproven, you have squirmed around arguing that "it was just a surmise" or "it wasn't relevant"

That you somehow enjoy this 'thread worse than genocide' is really not a good argument for me to continue talking to you. If you're enjoying this then its in your interest to continue to be obstructive and not try and look for answers.

This thread isn't "worse than genocide" for me (in fact, you are back to trivializing genocide again).  I am enjoying it, and learning a thing or two.  It clearly is in your interests to be obstructiionist and not look for the answer, because you are getting your ass chapped and you know perfectly well what the answers will be:
(1) The UN definition of genocide is more narrow than the popular definitions, and
(2) That while China could arguably be committing genocide by the popular conception of it, she isn't "technically" doing so (ie under the law).

[garbon]

Drill, baby, drill?

[Fate]

Drill, baby, drill?

That line doesn't work unless you're a MILF .

[Grey Fox]

Wow. That's alot of long ass posts.

[grumbler]

Wow. That's alot of long ass posts.

We get paid by the word.