On May 14, 10:46 am, Robert Cohen
msn.com> wrote:> 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
>From the site.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
gen·o·cide /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[jen-uh-sahyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial,
political, or cultural group.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is what is happening deliberate?
Is it systematic?
Is is an extermination?
Is it directed at a national, racial, political, or cultural group?
If the answer to all these is yes then you can say it is genocide.
