School shooting Florida

[BobTheCoward]

Even if they were an ethnic group you're still talking absolute bollocks. Taking spears off the Maasai wouldn't in any court in the world be counted as genocide. Same with taking guns off Americans.

Under certain conditions it would be

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

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, 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.

If the Spears were taken for the purposes of inflicting mental harm on the Maasai then it is genocide.

 

[Steve]

For purposes of what can be done under the second amendment, reasons are irrelevant

Of course they are, because reasons were irrelevant when it was written.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Word salad.

How come the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, but the 21st overturned the 18th with the ease of an old man sliding into a warm bath? I don't get "out" into other web-forums much, but do any of these constitutional purists fret about that violation of the document's integrity?

Is it just because the 2nd is part of the original Bill of Rights?

No it is the word of god, see the NRA. To go against total and unlimited weapons sales is heresy and will be put down harshly in the coming crusade.

Slay them all the Lord will know his own.

 

[Butter!]

That describes something that isn't an ethnic group. That is why I stated if they were an ethnic group.

If they WERE an ethnic group, and you took away that ethnic group's means of defending its members, that still would not be genocide. It would only be genocide if you then attacked and murdered them while they were defenseless.

You seem to be assuming that the government (or whomever, "bad guys") would attack and kill former gun owners once they were disarmed?

 

[Garrison]

In my opinion, the argument of preserving the people's ability to overthrow a corrupt government is effectively dead. The US government today has tanks, bombs, innumerable military personnel, and way WAY bigger guns. Go ahead and try to shoot at a tank with a handgun. See what happens.

And of course the kind of people scaremongering about some sort of martial law being imposed conveniently forget those armed forces are the children, siblings and friends of the people they would be called upon the supress. I suspect it would the corrupt government that would be the ones in trouble if they tried a military takeover in the USA.

 

[Fudbucker]

But that's true everywhere else. So we have a disdain for fictional life. That's not a very convincing argument. In fact, it has nothing to do with the discussion.

You don't think movies reflect a society's values? Really?

 

[BobTheCoward]

If they WERE an ethnic group, and you took away that ethnic group's means of defending its members, that still would not be genocide. It would only be genocide if you then attacked and murdered them while they were defenseless.

You seem to be assuming that the government (or whomever, "bad guys") would attack and kill former gun owners once they were disarmed?

Not true. Taking away an object revered by an ethnic group for purposes of inflicting harm to their mental health as a group is genocide.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And of course the kind of people scaremongering about some sort of martial law being imposed conveniently forget those armed forces are the children, siblings and friends of the people they would be called upon the supress. I suspect it would the corrupt government that would be the ones in trouble if they tried a military takeover in the USA.

That is why such take overs only happen when the movements are popular with those in the armed forces.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Word salad.

How come the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, but the 21st overturned the 18th with the ease of an old man sliding into a warm bath? I don't get "out" into other web-forums much, but do any of these constitutional purists fret about that violation of the document's integrity?

Is it just because the 2nd is part of the original Bill of Rights?

No one here said it was sacrosanct. Another amendment would be just as effective.

 

[Butter!]

You don't see what homicide rates have to do with a society's value of human life?

No, I don't see what homicide rates have to do with INDIVIDUALS' views on the value of human life. "Americans" are not the problem. Powerful Americans who support the continuation of harmful policies are. But many individual Americans place a very high value on human life, and many of us hate the way things are. We just don't have the power to effect the kind of change we probably need at the top.

To lump us all in together is fallacious and insulting. That was my point. I'm on the same "side" as many of the people demonizing my entire country, in the sense that I think we have a serious gun problem and want it to change.

 

[MikeG]

Not true. Taking away an object revered by an ethnic group for purposes of inflicting harm to their mental health as a group is genocide.

No it isn't. You can't just make up meanings for well established words. If you do, you make communication impossible, and give people reason to believe they are dealing with someone in the conversation only to wreck it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The corner of the term genocide defined it as "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."

Just wanted to get on the record that it doesn't require violence.

 

[Fudbucker]

No, I don't see what homicide rates have to do with INDIVIDUALS' views on the value of human life. "Americans" are not the problem. Powerful Americans who support the continuation of harmful policies are. But many individual Americans place a very high value on human life, and many of us hate the way things are. We just don't have the power to effect the kind of change we probably need.

Of course we're talking about a country of 300 million people, so Art was not making a point about individual Americans. Collectively, we value life less than a lot of other countries. I don't see how you can dispute this. America's obsession with guns and violence shows up everywhere in our culture. It's disgusting.

I saw Black Panther the other day. There's a scene early on, a museum heist. Guards are casually shot in the head. The movie's rated PG13. Phantom Thread, about a fashion designer's affair with a model, is rated R. Doesn't that tell you something about us?

 

[Butter!]

The corner of the term genocide defined it as "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."

Just wanted to get on the record that it doesn't require violence.

But it does require intent. Therefore, you are implying intent to harm theoretically disarmed gun owners.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No it isn't. You can't just make up meanings for well established words. If you do, you make communication impossible, and give people reason to believe they are dealing with someone in the conversation only to wreck it.

I will provide the cite. Wikipedia quoting the convention

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

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

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, to members of the group;

I didn't make up "harm to mental health."

 

[MikeG]

Not true. Taking away an object revered by an ethnic group for purposes of inflicting harm to their mental health as a group is genocide.

Genocide:

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

Now, as you've agreed that even your erroneous definition of genocide doesn't apply in this case, could you shut the **** up about it and stop trying to wreck the conversation. Again.

 

[Garrison]

Word salad.

How come the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, but the 21st overturned the 18th with the ease of an old man sliding into a warm bath? I don't get "out" into other web-forums much, but do any of these constitutional purists fret about that violation of the document's integrity?

Is it just because the 2nd is part of the original Bill of Rights?

And its notable how many of the defenders of the 2nd have no issue with attacking the 1st.

 

[Butter!]

Of course we're talking about a country of 300 million people, so Art was not making a point about individual Americans. Collectively, we value life less than a lot of other countries. I don't see how you can dispute this. America's obsession with guns and violence shows up everywhere in our culture. It's disgusting.

I saw Black Panther the other day. There's a scene early on, a museum heist. Guards are casually shot in the head. The movie's rated PG13. Phantom Thread, about a fashion designer's affair with a model, is rated R. Doesn't that tell you something about us?

I can dispute what I see as offensive, unnecessary rhetoric all day long. No one needs to agree, but I thought it should be put out there for consideration.

"Within America, there exists a problem of individuals on a large scale valuing personally-owned weapons above human life. This is not something I can understand." There, that makes the exact same point without the sweeping, othering language.

 

[MikeG]

......I didn't make up "harm to mental health."

Yeah, but you conveniently omitted "serious", and you've done nothing whatever to show any link to the deleterious mental health effects you are claiming. You also missed this bit:

A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"

You'll have to show that someone is planning to destroy the USA to be able to use the word genocide.

Now, get back on subject or you'll find your crap in AAH.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Genocide:



Now, as you've agreed that even your erroneous definition of genocide doesn't apply in this case, could you shut the **** up about it and stop trying to wreck the conversation. Again.

The example was the Maasai. You gave no reason for taking them. In my reply I explicitly said with the intent to attack their mental health as a group. That is genocide by the link you provided (and I quoted repeatedly).