The Glade 4.0

What exactly is wrong with shooting foreign invaders? How exactly is that in any way similar to genocide?

Again, you seem to be under the misapprehension that when people do something to provoke another nation and get killed, it's somehow similar to genocide. As for foreign aid to Africa, that's not tanamount to genocide regardless of the consequences. There's no obligation on our part to provide any aid whatsoever.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's not genocide to shoot people crossing the borders (although arguably human right's violation), but it would be genocide to kill all illegals already in the U.S.

Ok for starters if you want to get technical, it absolutely is genocide. The same way as if someone tries to rob you and you shoot them, it's still homicide. Shooting illegal immigrants at the border is the systematic killing of both an ethnic and a national group, so it's genocide.

Of course that doesn't mean genocide is always unjustified, but it's still technically genocide.

That said, I was using genocide as more of a general term to describe an action that results in mass deaths, not trying to strictly adhere to the definition. And yes, I definitely think it's monstrous to be shooting illegal immigrants. The same way I think it's monstrous to shoot someone who is only stealing property and not endangering anyone's life.

But it's not shooting an ethnic and national group. It's shooting a group of felons.

Nobody said the individuals crossing were of the same ethnic OR national group. You dirty racist. Just because somebody hops the Rio Grande, he's brown? No, maybe he was a Russian mobster who flew into Mexico.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

It's still shooting an ethnic and national group. The guy robbing you might be a felon, but he's still a human, and thus it's still homicide. The same logic applies.

By that logic homicide and genocide are the same thing?

Shooting a guy who is robbing you may be homicide, but it's not murder. Get it? You'r not shooting them because they're a member of an ethnic or national group; you're shooting them because they're engaging in invasion of your country.

If simply being members of the same ethnic or national group made shooting them genocide, then shooting enemy soldiers would be genocide. Evidently the defenders of Bataan were engaging in genocide since the people attacking them were all Japanese.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No it isn't. It's the systematic killing of people who are invading our country. The fact that they are members (mostly) of the same ethnic group is irrelevant (and they are certainly not a unified national group). Many of them aren't of Hispanic ethnicity; Chinese, Bangledeshis, and Indians, just to name a few are daily or weekly border crossers.

Homicide is not automatically a crime. You're conflating homicide with murder in your comparison.



No, it technically is not. Not even close. It has nothing to do with nationality or ethnicity, nor does it represent any campaign to exterminate anyone. It's a defensive action against an attacker.



It may be extreme to shoot illegal immigrants, but calling it monstrous is absurd. These people are here in the millions, and openly talk of a "reconquista". In any case, it's precisely this sort of attempt to use words for their emotional impact that has destroyed political discourse in this country. It's no longer enough to disagree with the other side, they must be demonized with whatever terms present themselves.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, I'm not. The entire point was that killing is always homicide, even if it's not a crime. The systematic killing of an ethnic or national group is genocide. That's the definition. Why you're killing them is irrelevant, it's genocide regardless. Your logic would be like saying that Mao Zedong didn't commit genocide, because he killed people for opposing him, not because they were Chinese.

I'm well aware that "genocide" is a loaded word that brings up images of Stalin's purges and the Holocaust and other such things, but I think it's an appropriate label when people seriously suggest policy changes that have a very real chance of resulting in millions of Americans dying from starvation or exposure. (Note that I didn't say all, but even a very small percentage of those affected suffering this fate is still millions) It's also appropriate to describe shooting illegal immigrants at the border, especially because it's not a big step from there to start tracking down the millions already in the country and summarily executing them. They are after all guilty of the same crime.

Here's another example. Let's say Israel gets sick and tired of all the crap coming out of the Gaza Strip and totally closes the border, along with shutting off all water, power, gas, and sewer service to the Strip. Within a few months, 90% of the population has starved to death. Have they not committed genocide? I mean under certain value systems (like, for example, the people who say we should have indiscriminately nuked Afghanistan after 9/11) they would be perfectly justified in taking this action, but they've still exterminated an entire ethnic group. That makes it genocide.

Them pesky "they" people. When will "they" learn. While we are making them answer for these statements can you tell them to return my homework from 5th grade? Cause thats about the last time I blamed the mythical "they" people for doing something.

Name people. Cite posts. Give links to the "not uncommon" positions you talk about. But this changing the frame of refrence in a debate crap isn't right.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Except that it is not killing of an ethnic or national group to shoot illegal aliens. They are neither a uniform ethnic or national group, and are not being shot for that reason. It's a systematic killing of people who are illegally crossing the border. The fact that the majority of them may be very vaguely of the same ethnic group insofar as most of them speak spanish is far from sufficient even for your criteria.

The systematic extermination, moreover, of a particular group, is criminal in and of itself, while killing isn't inherently criminal in and of itself so yes, you are are conflating murder and homicide.



Then, quite frankly, you are completely off your rocker. This extension of a crime form actively attempting to kill other people to simple refusal to expend resources to provide for him is appalling and absur. It is an attempt to hijak the emotional impact of the word "genocide" in order to criminalize a position you disagree with.

Furthermore, even if you tracked down and shot illegal immigrants, that wouldn't be genocide. They wouldn't be tracked down and shot because of their ethnicity; there are plenty of people here illegally from countries all around the world, while Hispanic immigrants here legally, and Hispanic citizens would not be shot. Again, you are trying to take a very vague, very general similarity among the majority of illegal immigrants and turn it into some sort of ethnic issue.

This dishonesty, of assuming that because most illegals are Hispanic, that therefore anything done to them must be racist or bigoted or whatever simply because it disproportionately impacts Hispanic people, or even just non-whites, is yet another example fo the inability of liberals to seriously address these issues. The fact that they are criminals who just happen to be of generally similar ethnicity is ignored in favor of claiming that anytihng done to them is because of ethnicity, or failing that, that the ethnic similarities make any enforcement of immigration law a form of "racism" regardless of motive.



No, not at all. They aren't targeting an ethnic group; they are targetting people who are attacking them.

Genocide means more than just ethnic or national similarity. It means an attempt to exterminate them because of their ethnicity or nationality. Not just kill off certain subgroups based on those groups' activity; that makes merely shooting enemy soldiers genocide. All your objections to shooting illegals run into this; even ignoring the fact that they are not an ethnic or national group, even if all illegals were Mexican, no one is proposing shooting all Mexicans, or all Mexicans in this country, or citizens of Mexican descent. The proposal is to shoot illegals - based on their actions, not their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or any other group membership.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Not really, the fact is, the 'family' has changed. It's no longer anywhere near a permanent partnership. We have death, divorce, and situations where children are being born to single mothers. The family looks nothing like what it used to, and a woman who relies on a man for her future security is an idiot.

11% of mothers raising kids alone are single, over 15% are divorced, and about 2% are widows. In total, over 51% of adult women don't live with a man.

So, she has to have a career if she wants any possible guarantee of a comfortable lifestyle and security for the children society assumes are totally hers and the life she'll have when they mature.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Xeq, your argument falls apart the second you realize that it's not just Mexicans we shoot. There is no ethnic or national qualifier here.

Wait, wait, wait...

Are you seriously conflating public policy leading to impoverishment with genocide?

Apparently every public official since the inception of central banking and redistributive taxation has been perpetrating genocide on the American people! Quick! Someone dig up Wilson ant hang him!
.
I never expected you to come out so strongly in support of the Tea Party, Xeq.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Would we save SS money if we euthanasized the old people? They're useless anyway. (Sorry Taskiss) They got us in the situation, lets nix SS and THEM as well. They can't keep voting for people that will ruin us all for their votes if they are dead.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Stop raping the English language.

Homicide is one thing, genocide is about. Shooting people because of their illegal actions is not genocide no matter how much the racist in you wants to assign a race to those committing the illegal actions.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

So all we need to do is make it illegal to be Mexican! Ah hah! Loophole!

Yeah, there's a fairly large difference between "impoverished" and "dead."

Also, would you consider the Holodomor and the Great Leap Forward to be genocide? I sure hope not, because both of those were public policy that led to a huge amount of deaths.

I'm the one using the word appropriately, not you. When you're talking about genocide, why you're killing people is irrelevant. All that matters is who you're killing. While illegal immigrants are not 100% Mexican and Hispanic, the vast vast majority are. Shooting them would definitely count.

Under your and DE's logic, neither Stalin nor Mao committed genocide. After all, they didn't kill people simply because they belonged to an ethnic or national group, they killed people who opposed them.

No Xeq, genocide is trying to wipe out a group of people. No one is going to march into central American and kill off any culture. So to disappoint your over-reacting side.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

What group of people did Stalin and Mao try to wipe out? You still can't argue past the point that under your logic the two worst genocidal lunatics in history wouldn't be considered to have committed genocide.

Are you talking about the Stalin era deportations, the famine, or something else? With Mao, are you talking about the Great Leap Forward, or the actons around 1960 against political dissidents? Because the big lump idea of "genocide" they are credited with, not all of the deaths fall under the definition. Yes, there is a difference. Look at Rwanda and Darfur. Look at the actions in the African nations. There is a line drawn, even by the UN.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

a) Of what other cause would they die other than impoverishment in your absurd farce of an argument?

b) Stop equating positive actions with negative actions.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

To my knowledge, neither Stalin nor Mao did perpetrate genocide, although there might be ethnic minorities against which they did. So what? They still slaughtered people on a mass scale. Does mass killing necessarily have to be called genocide to be a problem? I'd say it's relatively unimportant what we call it; we should had it out with Stalin in 1945 and nuked Mao off the face of the earth as soon as he intervened in Korea.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

1. That's exactly what they would die of. Of course, you set up a straw man and claimed I was labeling poverty as genocide, without actually mentioning anyone dyinh.

2. I'm really not doing that. During the Holodomor and Great Leap Forward, people starved to death as the result of the governments' policy, the government did not actively hunt the millions of people down and kill them.