I fail to see how the birth rate factors into the idea of a genocide. Those are not mutually exclusive things. Genocide only implies the intention to kill a group of people, in whole OR IN PART.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
Here is a rundown of the meaning and history of the word ‘genocide’, feel free to read the article and familiarize yourself with the recorded definition.
I’m glad I could correct your lack of understanding of the definition of the word. Far too many republicans seem not to understand the meanings of the words they use.
oh I see where you got it wrong! No, the decline or increase of a population has no bearing on genocide - it is the intentional killing of a group in whole OR IN PART.
So the amount of babies born does not cancel out the killing of other members of the group, if the intention is to wipe out the group in whole OR IN PART.
That is the definition of genocide, it does not in any way rely upon or even relate to the rate of birth!
I’m glad we could clear that up, and as such that I am in fact correct that the actions of the apartheid state Israel DO in fact rise to the basic definition of the word Genocide, as defined by the common definition, the wikipedia article and the United Nations!
It would seem to imply that wouldn’t it, but it doesn’t actually when you think about it. After all, the holocaust would still have been a genocide EVEN IF 6 million Jewish people were also born during world war 2. I’m glad I could help you through this misunderstanding!
So once again, the birth rate is not at issue, has no bearing, and in fact has nothing to do with the definition of Genocide. It’s not the birth rate, thats not a thing, that has never been a thing, it does not and never has been a part of the definition of genocide.
It has nothing, nothing, nothing, to do with the birth rate. I hope I have stated that clearly and politely :D
Hey good news wintermute! The UN are currently calling on the international community to declare the events in Palestine as a Genocide! Here is a link:
Also, I checked the wikipedia article for the phrase “Birth Rate” and it does not come up. In fact the only mention of birth is that an addition definition for genocide is the prevention of births, however it is not a necessary action to meet the definition of the word Genocide.
Genocide can take many forms, and CANNOT, IN ANY WAY, AT ALL, EVER, be counteracted by the rate of new births. That is not a thing and has never been a thing. Can you please provide me any literature that claims that the increase in births has any bearing on whether an action can be viewed as a Genocide?
That’s okay, you’re not disagreeing with me, you’re disagreeing with the literal meaning of the word. We can’t just make things up to suit how we’d like reality to be. All the best 👍
I fail to see how the birth rate factors into the idea of a genocide. Those are not mutually exclusive things. Genocide only implies the intention to kill a group of people, in whole OR IN PART.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide Here is a rundown of the meaning and history of the word ‘genocide’, feel free to read the article and familiarize yourself with the recorded definition.
I’m glad I could correct your lack of understanding of the definition of the word. Far too many republicans seem not to understand the meanings of the words they use.
deleted by creator
oh I see where you got it wrong! No, the decline or increase of a population has no bearing on genocide - it is the intentional killing of a group in whole OR IN PART.
So the amount of babies born does not cancel out the killing of other members of the group, if the intention is to wipe out the group in whole OR IN PART.
That is the definition of genocide, it does not in any way rely upon or even relate to the rate of birth!
I’m glad we could clear that up, and as such that I am in fact correct that the actions of the apartheid state Israel DO in fact rise to the basic definition of the word Genocide, as defined by the common definition, the wikipedia article and the United Nations!
deleted by creator
It would seem to imply that wouldn’t it, but it doesn’t actually when you think about it. After all, the holocaust would still have been a genocide EVEN IF 6 million Jewish people were also born during world war 2. I’m glad I could help you through this misunderstanding!
So once again, the birth rate is not at issue, has no bearing, and in fact has nothing to do with the definition of Genocide. It’s not the birth rate, thats not a thing, that has never been a thing, it does not and never has been a part of the definition of genocide.
It has nothing, nothing, nothing, to do with the birth rate. I hope I have stated that clearly and politely :D
deleted by creator
Hey good news wintermute! The UN are currently calling on the international community to declare the events in Palestine as a Genocide! Here is a link:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against
Also, I checked the wikipedia article for the phrase “Birth Rate” and it does not come up. In fact the only mention of birth is that an addition definition for genocide is the prevention of births, however it is not a necessary action to meet the definition of the word Genocide.
Genocide can take many forms, and CANNOT, IN ANY WAY, AT ALL, EVER, be counteracted by the rate of new births. That is not a thing and has never been a thing. Can you please provide me any literature that claims that the increase in births has any bearing on whether an action can be viewed as a Genocide?
deleted by creator
That’s okay, you’re not disagreeing with me, you’re disagreeing with the literal meaning of the word. We can’t just make things up to suit how we’d like reality to be. All the best 👍