A good reason for genocide
Can genocide under any circumstances be justified?
Go easy on the flames please...
Harlesburg
12-05-2005, 19:29
Ill tell you what Watch Escape from Athena!
I believe the NAzis had the ability to see into the future and when they saw the character of a Unfunny Jewish commedian and the fact they saw they would lose WWII anyways they said well give it a go Shit movies shopuldnt be made!
Thats your answer yes. ;)
Pterodonia
12-05-2005, 19:34
Can genocide under any circumstances be justified?
Go easy on the flames please...
Uh...no. Let me think about that some more...
...ummmm...no.
Enlightened Humanity
12-05-2005, 19:34
Can genocide under any circumstances be justified?
Go easy on the flames please...
Not that I can see. Unless of course we encounter an alien species that is predatory and needs erradicating to prevent humanity from being destroyed.
Subterranean_Mole_Men
12-05-2005, 19:34
Cro Magnons had it coming, Don't mess with Homo Sapiens you hairy ape men!
Swimmingpool
12-05-2005, 19:36
Yes. Well, I don't know if you count this, but 135,000 people died in the Bombing of Dresden. That was a necessary evil but it led to the destruction of Nazi Germany. Also in WWII, during the liberation of France, over 20,000 French people were killed.
Not that I can see. Unless of course we encounter an alien species that is predatory and needs erradicating to prevent humanity from being destroyed.
Have you been reading Harry Turtledove? :)
Cro Magnons had it coming, Don't mess with Homo Sapiens you hairy ape men!
Cro Magnons were homo sapiens same with neanderthals and most of them after cro Magnons
The neanderthals died but were superior to us (Neanderthals=Homo Sapien,Us(unless there is a hybrid)=Homo Sapien Sapien).
Sometimes. Maybe.
BerkylvaniaII
12-05-2005, 19:43
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Subterranean_Mole_Men
12-05-2005, 19:47
Cro Magnons were homo sapiens same with neanderthals and most of them after cro Magnons
The neanderthals died but were superior to us (Neanderthals=Homo Sapien,Us(unless there is a hybrid)=Homo Sapien Sapien).
Sometimes. Maybe.
I guess I am a self hating Homo Sapien Sapien then. I now hate neanderthals. Screw those large skulled, cave dwelling ape men, those were OUR mastadon hunting grounds.
Yes. Well, I don't know if you count this, but 135,000 people died in the Bombing of Dresden. That was a necessary evil but it led to the destruction of Nazi Germany. Also in WWII, during the liberation of France, over 20,000 French people were killed.
Nope, don't count that. Nor do I count nuking Japan, or even Pol Pot's Cambodia and Stalin's pogroms. (as unimaginably horrible mass-murders as the last two were)
It's not the numbers, it's the intent. If the intent is to eliminate group X because you don't like some generally "racial" attribute specific to that group, then it is genocide. We did not intend to kill all Germans, nor all Japanese in our bombing runs. The Nazis intended to kill all Jews. Much of the US settlement/conquest of the Louisania Purchase was genocidal. The African tribal conflicts of late are genocidal because they focus on tribe attempting to exterminate tribe. The Spanish conquest of Central & South America was genocidal.
Ending war and stopping further violence = good.
Ongoing programs of violence to eliminate group X = bad.
Carnivorous Lickers
12-05-2005, 22:09
I voted never. I would however, consider eliminating convicted child molesters/killers. I dont know if that would actually be considered "genocide", but if they were all collected from their various holding places and gassed to death,then buried in mass,unmarked graves, I wouldnt mind.
Thal_Ixu
12-05-2005, 22:19
Yes. Well, I don't know if you count this, but 135,000 people died in the Bombing of Dresden. That was a necessary evil but it led to the destruction of Nazi Germany. Also in WWII, during the liberation of France, over 20,000 French people were killed.
*gets wide eyes in disbelief*
How was the bombing of Dreseden necessary? Here we have a city, packed with refugees of not much military values anymore, since WW II was decided anyway. There weren't any considerable german troops in the city. The mass murder in Dresden was a revenge for the bombing of British cities by the Luftwaffe and an attempt to break the german spirit.
I would aks you to watch both sides in war equally critical. The bombing of Britain and Dreseden we're pretty much comparable, intended for breaking the opponents spirit but of doubtable strategic use. The bombing of Dresden also wasn't necessary for the destrcution of Nazi Germany, since Nazi Germany didn't have much left to defend itself with. It was a cruel and military not justifyable act. It wasn't genocide but it was murder. Anybody who thinks differenbtly is in my eyes only blind for the fact that in wars cruelty and war crimes are committed on both sides.
Cyrian space
12-05-2005, 22:49
*gets wide eyes in disbelief*
How was the bombing of Dreseden necessary? Here we have a city, packed with refugees of not much military values anymore, since WW II was decided anyway. There weren't any considerable german troops in the city. The mass murder in Dresden was a revenge for the bombing of British cities by the Luftwaffe and an attempt to break the german spirit.
I would aks you to watch both sides in war equally critical. The bombing of Britain and Dreseden we're pretty much comparable, intended for breaking the opponents spirit but of doubtable strategic use. The bombing of Dresden also wasn't necessary for the destrcution of Nazi Germany, since Nazi Germany didn't have much left to defend itself with. It was a cruel and military not justifyable act. It wasn't genocide but it was murder. Anybody who thinks differenbtly is in my eyes only blind for the fact that in wars cruelty and war crimes are committed on both sides.
While your point is valid, your definition of "genocide" is not. These events could possibly be marked as "Massacres" but not "genocide" because the intent was not to wipe out the other's race. Even if it was purely for revenge, it was not genocide.
The Abomination
12-05-2005, 23:21
Is genocide always based on race? If it is, then no.
Culturally however, there were/are some in definite need of dissolution.
Is genocide always based on race? If it is, then no.
Culturally however, there were/are some in definite need of dissolution.
Oh yeah? What do you have in mind? Killing all the fat people, or all people in favor of war? Even if group X is a verifiable detriment to society, its still not ok to simply extirminate them. No matter who you picked, you are still killing innocent people.
That's the deepest problem with genocide, even if you are ok with killing people, which you shouldn't be. If you arbitrarily pick a group of people, 99% of them will be innocent lives.
"Dissolution". Ha. The Nazis used lots of euphamisms, too.