On May 13, 10:04 am, BernardZ
Nospam.com> wrote:>> On May 10, 9:22 pm, bernardz
mail.com> wrote:>>> On May 11, 2:09 am, Robert Cohen
msn.com> wrote:>
>>>> On May 10, 8:33 am,BernardZ
Nospam.com> wrote:>
>
>>>>>> On May 9, 1:56 am,bernardz
mail.com> wrote:>>>>>>> On May 9, 4:17 am, Robert Cohen
msn.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 8:27 pm,bernardz
mail.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>> On May 1, 3:42 am, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2:27 am,BernardZ
Nospam.com> wrote:>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose this is an example of how:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguity is frequently--if not overwhelmingly--reality
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> institutions may rationalize or intellectualize or dodge any damne
>>>>>>>>>>>> thing
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> subjectivism trumps, like it or not Ayn-fans
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the g-word ought to be qualified or modified with "alleged"
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the world really sucks
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you are upset.Genocideis a legal work. As such
>>>>>>>>>>> it must follow a certain standard. A person can be guilty of mass murder
>>>>>>>>>>> but notgenocide.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> By the way in the article example is debatable whether the mass murders
>>>>>>>>>>> of the Armenian by the Turks was agenocide.- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>>>>>>>> Also from the article;
>
>>>>>>>>>> ...legal scholar Nsongurua Udombana; "By not calling it agenocide, it
>>>>>>>>>> appears to make the issue less urgent than it actually is."
>
>>>>>>>>> If I called it XXXXX to make it more urgent does not mean that it is
>>>>>>>>> XXXXX.
>
>>>>>>>>> Also what it can do is start a discussion about whether it is XXXXX
>>>>>>>>> rather then doing something by people that want to do nthing.
>
>>>>>>>>> I would think that mass murder should be urgent enough and not cause
>>>>>>>>> such useless discussions now.
>
>>>>>>>>> Once stopped I would agree to have a duly appointed court who could at
>>>>>>>>> leisure debate exactly what it is.
>
>>>>>>>>>> ...Samantha Powers, author of "The Age of
>>>>>>>>>>Genocide," [claims] ...Darfurhas spawned a dynamic in which Arabs are
>>>>>>>>>> killing Africans, and lighter skinned and darker skinned groups are
>>>>>>>>>> set against each other. [Nsongurua Udombana] says a confession by a
>>>>>>>>>> high ranking Sudanese official isn't needed to prove genocidal intent.
>>>>>>>>>> It can be shown via a common standard of "practice and pattern" of
>>>>>>>>>> crime.
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>> This article shows mass murder. As I statedGenocidedoes not equal
>>>>>>> Mass murder although it often does. Having said that I hope this does
>>>>>>> not subtract from the enormous crimes underway in Darfur. It is clear
>>>>>>> we are seeing there mass scale murder.
>
>>>>>>>Genocideis a legal term. I don't like it's overuse as I think it
>>>>>>> cheapens the word.
>
>>>>>>> Now to be guilty ofgenocideyou need victims from an indelible group
>>>>>>> and the perpetrator to have a purpose, goal, and an aim that involves
>>>>>>> to remove that group in a region.
>
>>>>>>> For example Stalin purges in the 1930s of Russian and Mao's in post
>>>>>>> ww2 China was a mass murder but neither weregenocide.
>
>>>>>>> On the other hand although fewer people killed Hitler murder of Jews
>>>>>>> in WW2, Bosnian and Rwandan were all Genocides.
>
>>>>>>> Interestingly some say, you don't even have to kill anyone to be
>>>>>>> guilty ofgenocide.
>
>
>
>>>>>>> By the way if you have any question Prof R.J. Rummel you can email and
>>>>>>> he is extremely helpful.- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>>>>> well, when the women are raped, they are referred to with a racial
>>>>>> epithet
>
>>>>>> well, the victims' religion is combo of muslimism and animism
>
>>>>>> well, the victims do no identify delves as "arabs," tho the jinjaweed
>>>>>> identify themselves as "arabs"
>
>>>>>> if the prof cares to argue, my address is above
>
>>>>>> here are some points
>
>>>>>> there are no "pure" biological races
>
>>>>>> genetics aren't so clear, even the nazis hedged a little about
>>>>>> "who's a jew"
>
>>>>>> "ethnic" group is not a totally finite either, is it?
>
>>>>>> "diffusion" and "absorption" are both cultual and biological processes
>
>>>>>> definitions are human cultural constructs, not math or science-based
>>>>>> imho
>
>>>>>Genocidedoes not require a such things what it requires is an indelible
>>>>> group for example a race, ethnicity, religion, a language etc.
>
>>>>>> tho, i'll again concede the wis-dumb of your kvetch, no matter if one
>>>>>> of the murderers confesses whom/what identifiable tribes he was told
>>>>>> to eliminate or rape
>
>>>>> If you are talking legal terms then you have to learn the language and
>>>>> the concepts.
>
>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>>> i have my opinions about legalistic language, and that includes the
>>>> sem-terrific aka b.s. phrase "legal fiction"
>
>>>> for instance, hey, a corporation is a person, because a judge/justices
>>>> have so ordered
>
>>>> this is also what i think of as your fallback "legal language," and if
>>>> you're happy that a corporation is a person, then...
>
>>>>genocideis a legal term, an emotive term, a political term, a media
>>>> term, what else
>
>>>> i don't think we disagree
>
>>> It is not a fallback position. Specific words are used to have
>>> meaning. That is why we have so many of them.- Hide quoted text -
>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> perhaps the empasizing of the legalistic meaning or technical
>> definition can be an unintended diversion or red herring in normative
>> politics,
>
>> unless one is an involved diplomat or a presiding attorney-judge whom
>> are expected to be legalistically precise (and often boring for being
>> so)
>
>> here is an example of eveyrday public affairs discussion reality
>
>> such expression or rhetoric, imho, is appropos
>
>
> No.
>
> All you are doing is confusing people. The people that know like me if
> you say genocide, will look for conditions to see if it is a genocide.
> Then we will say our doubts to others that don't know what genocide
> means. They will hear an argument as to whether or not a genocide is
> taking place and valuable time will be lost in the process.
>
> There are many types of murders and would you call it a patricide,
> policide, homicide, tyrannicide, democide and ethnocide etc?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
sometimes common sense or ordinary useage trumps technicality
the articulate blogger etal may have his/her rhetoric w/o fear of
correction, though s(he) may be aware of the professor's kvetch or the
qualifier '"alleged" genocide
because, gosh damneit,
it looks like genocide or certainly seems like it
in any case, it is indisputedly large scale, organized, systematic
murdering of a targeted, particular population whom are called
"slaves" by cruel tormentors/executioners/murderers
the uninvolved, on-looking person is ignorant (i did not say stupid)
of legalistic nuance, and/or doesn't care about as much about the
academic esoterica as your professor
if you took a poll on the street in the west (i dunno about the rest
of the world), 90%% or more would call it genocide
legal wording is for legal dictionaries
now, here's a dictionary that is not necessarily concerned with the
legal terminology
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide
tthe common useage trumps the professor's properness
