Going deep into the legal definition of genocide is missing the point.
oh ok, so we shouldn’t consider the legal definition then, well let’s see what the colloquial definition is.
“Genocide is violence that targets individuals because of their membership of a group and aims at the destruction of a people.”
as per the first wiki line. The whole rest of the page provides a more academic definition, and argubaly a very legal one, but we aren’t talking about that.
"genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race. "
as per brittanica, one of the sources of all time.
well if we’re basing this entire feelings thing off of this definition specifically, i see no resemblance to this conflict in significant part. I see no reason to believe that israel is doing this SOLELY because muslims (or arabs or whatever)
and sure, we could consider the academic definition of it. But academics used to believe that the earth was at the center of the solar system, and that plate tectonics, wasn’t a thing. And now we do. You shouldn’t treat academics as a source of authority (this is a fallacy btw), their works, if tried and tried, proven to hold up against the rigorous test that is the universe, can be said to be, to some extent. When it comes to things like philosophy and sociology, it’s literally just write your own story line adventure game. Everyone says different things, and in some capacity, everyone is right.
We could talk about history, which would arguably be more relevant. But considering this is an active conflict, good luck trying to parse that one, you’re only going to get historical contexts with that one. Which to be fair, would help a lot.
What category it falls under doesn’t change what’s happening there and the support the US is giving it
well yeah no it would, because that’s the whole point of the legal definition, is to give it an actual conceptualization that isn’t purely based on internet conjecture and shitposting. But again, we’re not here to talk about the legal definition.
just to repeat myself here
Like to be clear, i agree with about 90-95% of the shit you have problems with, the one bone i have to pick is whether or not this counts as genocide, and given the loaded usage of the word, i feel like it’s appropriate to expect a reasonable basis of proof/evidence, or even a legal ruling on the matter in order to claim as such.
oh ok, so we shouldn’t consider the legal definition then, well let’s see what the colloquial definition is.
“Genocide is violence that targets individuals because of their membership of a group and aims at the destruction of a people.”
as per the first wiki line. The whole rest of the page provides a more academic definition, and argubaly a very legal one, but we aren’t talking about that.
"genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race. "
as per brittanica, one of the sources of all time.
well if we’re basing this entire feelings thing off of this definition specifically, i see no resemblance to this conflict in significant part. I see no reason to believe that israel is doing this SOLELY because muslims (or arabs or whatever)
and sure, we could consider the academic definition of it. But academics used to believe that the earth was at the center of the solar system, and that plate tectonics, wasn’t a thing. And now we do. You shouldn’t treat academics as a source of authority (this is a fallacy btw), their works, if tried and tried, proven to hold up against the rigorous test that is the universe, can be said to be, to some extent. When it comes to things like philosophy and sociology, it’s literally just write your own story line adventure game. Everyone says different things, and in some capacity, everyone is right.
We could talk about history, which would arguably be more relevant. But considering this is an active conflict, good luck trying to parse that one, you’re only going to get historical contexts with that one. Which to be fair, would help a lot.
well yeah no it would, because that’s the whole point of the legal definition, is to give it an actual conceptualization that isn’t purely based on internet conjecture and shitposting. But again, we’re not here to talk about the legal definition.
just to repeat myself here
i guess you forgot to read this part.