Difference between revisions of "User:GrapeSkoda"

From arguably.io
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Temporary -- Going to add citations, better formatting, links to other potential subjects (race, continuum fallacy), general clean-up, grammar, etc.)
 
(Blanked the page)
Tag: Blanking
 
(31 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Genocide Is The Extermination Or Decimation Of An Ethnic Group IF There Is An Awareness Of Said Decline Via Actions Committed ==


"The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
*1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
*2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."
"Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
*(a) Killing members of the group;
*(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
*(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
*(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
*(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III:  The following acts shall be punishable:
*(a) Genocide;
*(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
*(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
*(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
*(e) Complicity in genocide."
"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.
It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."
- Raphael Lemkin
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnic groups can be defined in various ways.
The traditional method is through phenotype and through cultural markers, such as language, dialect, cultural etiquette/behaviours, attire, etc.
Modern interpretations often also combine genetic frequency data.
The frequency of specific alleles in a person often correlates with their geographic origins.
Popular services such as ''Ancestry'' and ''23&Me'' provide services that attempt to pinpoint someone's ethnicity by their gene frequencies via a saliva sample.
One interpretation of genocide could be the alteration of these gene frequencies to indistinguishable levels.
This would be done through large demographic movements and interbreeding between populations that are largely genetically distant.
Another method is the redistribution and allocation of resources to competing genetic-groups.
Much how invasive species affect indigenous species, other ethnic-groups can outbreed indigenous groups and occupy more resources in a given location.
In a "wilder" and less controlled environment, this would self-correct as the indigenous populations would likely be better adapted to the ecology.
However, with human-rights laws, poverty laws and other humanitarian interventions that prevent immediate harm, this creates an environment where those that breed faster continue to proliferate, due to the lack of environmental selection-pressures that would otherwise select for K-Strategy.
Without demographic controls, Indigenous populations would continue to diminish in the presence of a surviving group that breeds faster.
Many argue that by the definition of genocide, the acts must be initially intentional.
However, once a government body is made aware of its actions and their consequences, but still refuses to alter their policies or address the situation,it then falls under the category of being at best complicit and at worst directly responsible through negligence.
Whether the actions of said governing body were intended to bring about the genocide of a population is essentially irrelevant when the results are the same.
Some have proposed that this line of reasoning be dubbed a fallacy:
The continued refusal to change an action, occurrence, event, procedure, law (etc.), when the negative consequences of said occurrence (et al.) do not come about via malicious intent to ensure said consequences -- even after the knowledge of said consequences is made apparent to the committer.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|Statement of the claim:
|Genocide Is The Extermination Or Decimation Of An Ethnic Group As Long As There Is An Awareness Of Said Decline Via Actions Committed
|-
|Level Of Certainty:
|True
|-
|Nature:
|Semantic
|-
|Counterclaim:
|Genocide Of A Population Is Not Genocide If It Is Not Intentional
|-
|Dependent on:
|Etymology and Original Usage Of The Word "Genocide", Semantic Arguments Regarding International Legality
|-
|Dependency of:
|One Race: The Human Race, Cline and Continuum Fallacy (The Existence Of Race and Ethnicity)
|}

Latest revision as of 19:03, 25 November 2023

Retrieved from "https://arguably.io/index.php?title=User:GrapeSkoda&oldid=3649"