this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
91 points (100.0% liked)

chat

8446 readers
146 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

context: the debatejak-fan high school friend I’ve complained about before, I’m pressing him on his debate daddy’s claim that nuking the Gaza Strip and annihilating the entire population of it would not be an act of genocide

He tries to say it depends on the context, and I’m like, ‘elaborate’ interviewer

Here is the hypothetical scenario in which an Israeli nuke is launched into the Gaza Strip, killing everybody in it, where purportedly no one is guilty of genocide. I am going to try my best to quote this conversation as close to how it played out as I can.


Let’s say, a rogue IDF soldier sees one Hamas guy in the Gaza Strip, and he launches a nuke to deal with him.

That would still be genocide, dude, the rogue IDF soldier would have committed an act of genocide.

It wouldn’t, because–

What do you mean it wouldn’t?

Because he’s using the nuke without the special intent to kill everyone in the Gaza Strip, he’s using it to get the Hamas guy-

No, wait, when you’re launching a– if you unleash a WMD the results of the action is a responsibility you take on and can be assigned to your– unless a fucking breeze literally takes your nuke and puts it somewhere else, it’s– you assume responsibility for the consequences of your actions, especially if you can comprehend them, which I’m not even going to consider people not knowing what nukes do to be valid.

But it wouldn’t be genocide! He doesn’t have the special intent.


How the fuck did this rogue soldier get the nuclear codes anyways strangelove-wow

(page 2) 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] D61@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

How many civilians should I be morally correct (and allowed without consequence) in killing to kill one of my "enemies"?

[–] abc@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

officer, I wasn't aiming for you or your fellow squad-members I was aiming for the convicts in the jail connected to the police department smuglord

[–] Utter_Karate@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

I have an idea for how you could start luring guys with the same height/hair color/background as your debate bro friend into a van, put them to sleep with tranquilizer, bring them back to a fortified basement and put them through a series of physical trials based on bible verses until they die and then start mailing their severed fingers to the police together with taunting letters. And here's the weird thing: it wouldn't be serial killing!

Hear me out -

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

We must stop men from reading Ender's Game.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

I know this is beneath refutation and also has already been addressed, but if you look at the actual UN definition of genocide, it doesn't specify a necessary "special intent" like he keeps harping on. Being aware of the consequences to a population and still doing it ("Oh, let's dump industrial waste into this river, who cares if there's a reservation downstream?") is genocide. It's not like homicide where it is distinguished from manslaughter in that regard, which I assume is where he/D got that language from.

[–] GnastyGnuts@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

The fixation on "special intent" is funny when the pro-israel side of that debate also emphatically stated that international law doesn't mean jack fucking shit.

[–] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If I spray a room full of 25 people down with a minigun because I'm trying to kill one particular person in that room, I'm not going to only get charged with one count of murder.

Even setting that aside, this is a mistake in reasoning that's exactly parallel to the one that sovereign citizens make. Laws and legal definitions aren't magic, and they're not contracts with fantasy devils: finding a weird wording that constitutes a "loophole" is almost never going to get you off on a technicality. We reason about this stuff holistically, in context, and through reference to past cases.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›