Turkish ?

[Josquius]

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." 

Nope. I said  I doubt that there would be many occasions where you can call genocide and it isn't covered. You leaped on this as if I'd said there in no way isn't any occasions where this can happen and it was directly relevant to the point.
That both have areas where they do not overlap does not in anyway make the common definition broader.

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

Of course its not.
Your point is that I don't know what I'm talking about, that technically committing genocide doesn't mean technically committing genocide. You have been proven wrong in your argument. My point stands as much as it was. Tada.

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.

Yes it does.
Go back to the technicalities of killing one man please.

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 the one squirming, that quote directly supports what I've been saying and goes contrary to your arguments.

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

Fixed.

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

Yeah you did. Just ctrl+f for trivial on page 2 (max settings).

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

Thanks for agreeing with me. I didn't think that would be so easy.

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?

Of course it doesn't use the exact wording, its point however is clear

theoretically, then, the murder of a single person could constitute an attempt at genocide

If killing one person is theoretically (in this context it means much very similar to technically) then it follows that killing two or three is also.

Killing != killing ?

That was your argument.
Killing priests doesn't count as killing members of a group.

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!

Except we never said we were using practical, real world law to begin with. The source statement you are arguing against is my technically China are comitting genocide. My entire point here was that technically they are. Not actually in practice. I never even mentioned the case being brought up in standard law as that was quite the given hence my use of technically rather than just stating it is genocide.

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.

Fine.

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.

which is a reply to.

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.

I quite clearly wasn't saying you were making a strawman there, just doing my good deed for the day and giving you something that would be suitable for one (given your prior failed attempts)

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

    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.

So because in one point it (wrongly) states that the rest of it becomes invalid?

Amongst others.

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

What is actually written down as standard UN regulations. Not the decisions they then reached in one case in practice.

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!

That is not at all my argument. My argument is the absolute numbers of most people have risen over the 2nd half of the 20th century. Care to refute that?
That the numbers in those genocides decreased is irrelevant. Again that A and B are C does not make A B. China is not committing genocide, according to the exact wording of that law however it technically is.

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?

First time you've mentioned that.
And the answer to this is quite clear; how does it in anyway stop their attempts to destroy them?
In fact the argument that this supports if anything (very much more likely nothing) is a pro-genocide one, not anti.

T
Please provide a single authoritative source that supports your claim that the legal definition of genocide is narrower than the popular one.

er-eh. You don't turn this into a full legal talk so easily. If I wanted that I would have studied the stuff.

http://clg.portalxm.com/library/evidence.cfm?evidence_summary_id=250040 - it is unclear what counts as genocide

The challenge is to formulate an understanding of genocide that is neither too narrow (so that major episodes of mass killing are ignored) nor too broad (so that almost anything can be described as a genocide). Researchers and policy makers have worked to clarify the notion of genocide in order to make it a legally and conceptually useful term.

Clearly it can technically be ridiculously broad.
I never said it WAS.
Just that technically you could see it that way.

I
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).

Such as?

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.

And how do you expect me to do that? As said people much better versed in such matters than you or I devote their lives to that.
I am not addressing that issue as I've no interest in discussing it, its not the issue you originally challenged.

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"

To my recollection my arguments have never been disproven. If something isn't true I don't argue it.

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.

Oh well, at least I'm teaching you and something good is coming out of it.

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:

No I am not getting my 'ass chapped', not at all. Why are you under the impression you are somehow 'winning'? This is not even something that can be won or lost but if it were I'm on top, my point is sound lest I would not have made it.

(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).

The opposite is true.
(Though in the past 2 has held true on some occasions for China but in different areas to here)

[Martinus]

TLDR

[grumbler]

Nope. I said  I doubt that there would be many occasions where you can call genocide and it isn't covered. You leaped on this as if I'd said there in no way isn't any occasions where this can happen and it was directly relevant to the point.

Incorrect. You said "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.  "Any" and "anyone" are specific terms.

That both have areas where they do not overlap does not in anyway make the common definition broader.

Then give me specific demonstrable cases where the two legal standards of the UN convention have been met and this would not commonly be considered genocide.  Remember the two standards are (according to ICTY, cited in McGill:

"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."

Unless you can do so, then I have proven that there are popular conceptions of genocide that don't fall under the technical meaning, and you cannot prove the reverse.  Don't just say "the Spanish case" because that has not demonstrated any men rea at all.  You must show the mens rea.

Your point is that I don't know what I'm talking about, that technically committing genocide doesn't mean technically committing genocide. You have been proven wrong in your argument. My point stands as much as it was. Tada.

Again with the strawmen!   Don't tell me what my point is, especially in such a bogus fashion.  Quote me to show what you think my point is.  Your strawman is, of course, completely wrong.

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.

Yes it does.

  The UN convention does not even USE the term "popular definition of genocide."  You cannot say that the UN Convention says that it does without citing the specific wording that you believe translates into "the legal definition of genocide is broader than the popular one."

You're the one squirming, that quote directly supports what I've been saying and goes contrary to your arguments.

What quote?  This seems like more vaguenes in an attempt to squirm away from the fact that you have no sources to support your argument.  Give me the specific words from McGill that you believe support your contention that the legal definition of genocide is broader than the popular one.

Yeah you did. Just ctrl+f for trivial on page 2 (max settings).

Nope.  Isn't there.  Quote me, baby.

Of course it doesn't use the exact wording, its point however is clear

theoretically, then, the murder of a single person could constitute an attempt at genocide

If killing one person is theoretically (in this context it means much very similar to technically) then it follows that killing two or three is also.

I notice that you drop the key rest of the sentece in your quotemining: "if the aggressor's intent was to kill that person as part of larger plan to destroy a group."
 
So this statement (which I acknowledged when I quoted it) is perfectly consistent with my argument and supports your not at all.  China cannot be found guilty of genocide if one man shoots another, though that one man could be found guilty of "acts of genocide" (quote from the McGill snippet you quoted) if he were acting as a part of a larger plan to commit genocide.  A Nazi guard who shot a man trying to escape from Treblina would be "technically" guilty of an act of genocide even if he committed no other acts.

That was your argument.

Nope.  I never said that.  Yet another strawman.

Killing priests doesn't count as killing members of a group.

Why not?

Except we never said we were using practical, real world law to begin with. The source statement you are arguing against is my technically China are comitting genocide. My entire point here was that technically they are. Not actually in practice. I never even mentioned the case being brought up in standard law as that was quite the given hence my use of technically rather than just stating it is genocide.

I cited the UN Convention (which is "practical, real world law") and you agreed that that was the standard for "technical" genocide.  Now you want to weasel out of that.  Not sure what is left if you want to define "technical" as "Tyr's unsupportable private intepretation of what genocide 'technically' is."

(snipped a bunch of incoherent rambling off the topic)

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 genocide in which the numbers of people subjected to the genocide increased!

That is not at all my argument. My argument is the absolute numbers of most people have risen over the 2nd half of the 20th century. Care to refute that?

Whether the "absolute numbers of most people have risen over the 2nd half of the 20th century" has nothing to do with genocide, and evades the question.  Again, name one case of accepted homicide in which the numbers of people subjected to the genocide increased!

That the numbers in those genocides decreased is irrelevant. Again that A and B are C does not make A B. China is not committing genocide, according to the exact wording of that law however it technically is.

Again, the evasions.  You throw out concrete evidence as irrelevant in the face of your unsupported assertions.  Simply repeating that China is "technically" committing genocide does not make the assertion stronger.  Only evidence, not repetition, strengthens an assertion.

Clearly it can technically be ridiculously broad.
I never said it WAS.
Just that technically you could see it that way.

It could be seen as ridiculously broad if, technically, one didn't know anything about genocide under the law.  Which was my very first point.

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.

And how do you expect me to do that? As said people much better versed in such matters than you or I devote their lives to that.
I am not addressing that issue as I've no interest in discussing it, its not the issue you originally challenged.

You cannot claim that China is "technically" (ie in accordance with the law) committing genocide and then refuse to loo at the technical requirements for committing genocide.  Since you now concede that you have not even adddressed the technical requirements for guilt under genocide, I will re-assert that you technically don't know what "technical" genocide really means.

To my recollection my arguments have never been disproven. If something isn't true I don't argue it.

You have just concede that you are "not addressing [motives for genocide] as I've no interest in discussing it."  That absolutely abandons your original argument that "Technically what's going on in China is genocide" because, of course, it cannot "technically" be genocide unless "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" is demonstrated.

Oh well, at least I'm teaching you and something good is coming out of it.

Yes, you are teaching me that chapping your ass is as fun as chapping Paul Atreides' ass! 

No I am not getting my 'ass chapped', not at all. Why are you under the impression you are somehow 'winning'? This is not even something that can be won or lost but if it were I'm on top, my point is sound lest I would not have made it.

I would say that your abandonment of a required element of the "technical" definition of genocide is pretty clear evidence that you are in full retreat.  So far, you have produced feeble evidence for the first element, to whit:
(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 has destroyed cultural artifacts and
(7) China has seriously harmed many members [presumably of minorities]
and you have abandoned the second.  And there are only two elements! 

[DGuller]

You know how some things are so terrible that their terribleness in itself is hillarious?  I haven't read of of those posts, but just the fact that I have to "Page Down" four times just to scroll through a single one makes this "debate" qualify.

[PDH]

I vote this best thread ever so far today.

[Ed Anger]

The work involved in breaking up each post to refute is impressive. I'd rather find one silly statement, change it slightly, call the person a nazi and then godwin the thread.

Or just masturbate.

[grumbler]

I vote this best thread ever so far today.

Disagree.

[grumbler]

The work involved in breaking up each post to refute is impressive. I'd rather find one silly statement, change it slightly, call the person a nazi and then godwin the thread.

Or just masturbate.

I wasn't aware that that was a "one or the other" choice.   

[DisturbedPervert]

Have you guys figured out if Turkish has a word for irony yet? 

[garbon]

No, but we have seen that Jos likes to troll.

[grumbler]

Have you guys figured out if Turkish has a word for irony yet? 

Well, they have a word for wrinkly, so you'd think they had one for its opposite.

[Neil]

No, but we have seen that Jos likes to troll.

Now now.  I'm sure he believes the ridiculous things he says.  It's just that he hasn't thought them through very well.  He's from coal-mining country, and is thus not very clever.

[garbon]

Now now.  I'm sure he believes the ridiculous things he says.  It's just that he hasn't thought them through very well.  He's from coal-mining country, and is thus not very clever.

[grumbler]

No, but we have seen that Jos likes to troll.

Just saw this.  Is that who "Tyr" is? 

That explains a lot that was unclear to me before I had this info. 

[garbon]

Just saw this.  Is that who "Tyr" is? 

That explains a lot that was unclear to me before I had this info. 

Yep, it is Jos.