The Gaming Den

Chamomile wrote:Fine distinctions between abhorrent acts are actually an important thought experiment, for me, at least, because while I'll probably never be in a position to have much impact on slavery or genocide, generally training myself to think about how bad things are relative to each other helps me make effective moral decisions. So, for me, here's what this thought experiment boils down to: If I could remove the holocaust or Southern slavery from history forever without significantly altering the course of history in any other way (i.e. if I prevent the holocaust, we still get all the benefits of Nazi rocket scientists and such, because of magic), which one do I get rid of?

And I'd say punting slavery is the right thing to do, because it affected more people and because dying in chains seems just as bad as dying in a gas chamber, and having to work on a plantation for a few decades first doesn't really seem like it improves the deal.

Speculating about alternate history isn't really hugely helpful. Moreover, even the after-effects of genocide have far-reaching consequences. Genocides are very rarely total, and the survivors can be very embittered. Just look at Israel in the present day.

As a matter of international law though... again, the modern precedent for punishing slavery was the South African Truth and Reconciliation trials, which handed out pretty mild punishments compared to Nuremberg. As a legal matter, genocide and attempted genocide are worst.

How much "worse" each is from an individual perspective is subjective.

Zinegata wrote:I was replying to K, who was blatantly lying about what I was saying. Again, if you're a fucking moron who cannot tell that "exterminate a people" is quite a bit worst than "subjugate a people", because in the latter case the subjugated people at least gets to live and has a chance at freedom later, then you should restrict yourself to grade school history; because history is full of really dark shit and one can easily make the argument that everyone's ancestor is some kind of monster unless you're ready to take a cold, hard look at the nature of evil.

Slavery is evil. Genocide is evil. But unless you are ready to have an actual mature discussion on the nature of evil you have no place barging into an argument and shouting "There are only two boxes! Good and evil!" That's being an asshole.

Oh complete fucking bullshit. Don't pretend this is some "I'm all intellectual and you are a bunch of grade school kiddies unless you discuss evil the way I want". Because you sound like a douche.

Discussing whether slavery is more evil than genocide and vice versa is an ivory tower bullshit exercise. And that's all that it is. Yes, everyone's ancestors WERE some kind of monster by most modern definitions of the word. And all we need to do is accept that, and understand that we can do better.

There are two big boxes, Good and Evil. The fact that you can put dividers into the Evil box and sort it out is a fact, but not a terribly important one. The important point is, you don't want to be fucking around with anything in that box. Period.

Now now Polite Newb I hate to call you out over a matter of etiquette.

And I am not exactly a hip with it modern type kid on the street who is rocking it to the modern type cool forum trends.

But isn't the appropriate response after someone makes four posts in a row that are little more than repetitive content free insanity.... "Combo Breaker!".

And in all seriousness. Sure. Lets have shades of grey boxes, you can have as many as 37 if you insist. No one cares because Slavery and Genocide, which functionally and objectively involve pretty much the same actual acts, still go in the same fucking box and it's the darkest box you get.

PhoneLobster wrote:Now now Polite Newb I hate to call you out over a matter of etiquette.

And I am not exactly a hip with it modern type kid on the street who is rocking it to the modern type cool forum trends.

Shit, I'm 33...that's not exactly cutting-edge.

Not to mention, PL and I are actually agreeing on something? Fuck, it's a Christmas miracle.

God bless our little internet hole full of argumentative nerds.

I'll grant that this debate is beyond stupid. But there's some value in reminding people that slavery actually is super bad. I mean, the people who want to put the ten commandments up in courthouses and state capitols are basically saying that slavery and rape aren't bad enough to make the grade, compared to such atrocities as lying or theft (to say nothing of the horrors of failing to keep the sabbath). It's worth reminding those fuckwits that they are, in fact, as wrong as it is possible to be.

Then again, the bible is about as pro-slavery as it is pro-genocide (which is to say, the main characters do both pretty much all the time), so maybe it's a lost cause.

PoliteNewb wrote:Oh complete fucking bullshit. Don't pretend this is some "I'm all intellectual and you are a bunch of grade school kiddies unless you discuss evil the way I want". Because you sound like a douche.

That's the intent.

Discussing whether slavery is more evil than genocide and vice versa is an ivory tower bullshit exercise. And that's all that it is. Yes, everyone's ancestors WERE some kind of monster by most modern definitions of the word. And all we need to do is accept that, and understand that we can do better.

And how do you propose we do better if we do not understand the root causes of how otherwise normally good and decent people become involved in some of the worst crimes in history?

There are two big boxes, Good and Evil. The fact that you can put dividers into the Evil box and sort it out is a fact, but not a terribly important one. The important point is, you don't want to be fucking around with anything in that box. Period.

See, this is exactly the grade school understanding of evil I'm talking about.

It is easy to simply say "Nazis are evil!" and imagine them all as tall, blonde, blue-eyes racists who want to eat Jewish babies for breakfast.

It is considerably harder to consider that most Nazis were ordinary men and women, with families and children, trying to live a typical "middle-class" life that would have been little different than Americans did at the same time.

Some of them would clock in a concentration camp at 8am and clock out at 5pm, treating it as though it was just another job. When he got home, he'd be a loving dad to his daughters.

That wouldn't make him any less evil. But it's pretty shocking how ignorant people can be on what the face of evil can be.

Evil is not simple. And what is shocking about many of the worst crimes in human history isn't that it was committed by barbarians. It was committed by pretty "civilized" people - little different from you or me - and yet they'd still commit mass murder without blinking an eye.

And in real life, there are no clearly marked boxes which says "Good" or "Evil". Something you do today could lead to terrible wrongs ten years down the line. So unless you're willing to take a deep breath and make actual distinctions - you're really not going to be able to understand how evil really takes root.

As an aside, let me cite an example that is entirely from the Second World War.

During the Nuremberg trials, one of the charges against the Nazi regime were "Crimes Against Peace". In summary, these charges were brought against the Nazis because they had plotted to declare war and conquer several countries - in particular Poland.

Several high-ranking officials were convicted of this crime and hanged.

And yet the Soviet Union was also guilty of the same crime. In fact, the reason why the Germans invaded Poland was because they signed a treaty with the Soviets, with both countries agreeing to invade Poland and split the spoils between them.

To date, no one on the Soviet side was charged with the same crime.

So again, ask yourself: Is it a simple case of putting them both in the "Evil" box? Can you really tell the Soviets they are war criminals after losing 20 million citizens fighting the Germans and sparing the West a mountain of blood? Or what of the Poles, shouldn't they get restitution?

Good and evil isn't so easy in real life.

Zinegata intends to sink this thread with totally irrelevant gibberish if it's the last thing he ever does!

And he will damn well keep doing it with multiple posts and NO requirement for anyone to reply to him!

It's almost like he KNOWS he is on everyone's ignore list and he intends to spam the thread out ANYWAY.

Christ.

@K
Free lesson: You CAN understand the motivations of people and still shoot them for doing crimes against humanity/being against your country. People on a war know the risks already.

So cut the "don't speak about it, is evil" whining. Looks like an "abstinence only" sex education class.

EDIT: Yet again, have to make sure that the argument is directed to the right person. Else I get weird off-tangent attacks.

PhoneLobster wrote:Zinegata intends to sink this thread with totally irrelevant gibberish if it's the last thing he ever does!

And he will damn well keep doing it with multiple posts and NO requirement for anyone to reply to him!

It's almost like he KNOWS he is on everyone's ignore list and he intends to spam the thread out ANYWAY.

The topic is "Neutrality in History IS a Bias". Not "We hate Zinegata because he disproves my point!".

So look to yourself for the one posting irrelevant gibberish.

PoliteNewb wrote:Shit, I'm 33...that's not exactly cutting-edge.

So young ... don't worry ... one year you might learn something.

Gx1080 wrote:Christ.
"abstinence only" sex education class.

which is wrong anyway.

Gx1080 wrote:Free lesson: You CAN understand the motivations of people and still shoot them for doing crimes against humanity/being against your country. People on a war know the risks already.

So cut the "don't speak about it, is evil" whining. Looks like an "abstinence only" sex education class.

Uh, who the fuck are you arguing against, exactly?
Yes, I know you can understand motivations AND shoot them for crimes...thanks for the obvious. The point is whether I really give a fuck about motivations (in this case, not really), and whether any motivation can do anything at all to mitigate slavery and genocide (again, not really).

I also never said "don't speak about it, is evil"...speak about it all you want. But if your speaking is about how Mr. 98% evil is better than Mr. 99% evil, you are wasting your motherfucking breath, AND you sound like an apologist for evil. If that's who you want to be, go right ahead.

tzor wrote:So young ... don't worry ... one year you might learn something.

You can take your condescension and shove it right up your ass.
Here's something that you may have forgotten in your dotage...the older are not, in fact, always wiser. In fact, sometimes they can't even wipe their own ass.
But rather than turn this into a contest of "you're a callow youth!" and "you're a senile old fuck!", I would rather let this simply be a contest of ideas, and not participants. I think yours are bullshit, and you think the same of mine, apparently. Readers can judge for themselves.

PoliteNewb wrote:I also never said "don't speak about it, is evil"...speak about it all you want. But if your speaking is about how Mr. 98% evil is better than Mr. 99% evil, you are wasting your motherfucking breath, AND you sound like an apologist for evil. If that's who you want to be, go right ahead.

Well, to be fair if you're arguing that we shouldn't debate over 98% or 99% evil, you'd be totally right there. But there is a gap between genocide and slavery big enough to warrant a distinction. Nobody has yet invented a numerical evil-o-meter and it would be dumb to do so (albeit there are country rankings on Human Rights by organizations like Amnesty, so...)

From a personal level, you may not see any difference between slavery and genocide. But from the perspective of studying historical events and as a legal matter, the difference is pretty big.

Zinegata wrote:

PoliteNewb wrote:I also never said "don't speak about it, is evil"...speak about it all you want. But if your speaking is about how Mr. 98% evil is better than Mr. 99% evil, you are wasting your motherfucking breath, AND you sound like an apologist for evil. If that's who you want to be, go right ahead.

Well, to be fair if you're arguing that we shouldn't debate over 98% or 99% evil, you'd be totally right there. But there is a gap between genocide and slavery big enough to warrant a distinction. Nobody has yet invented a numerical evil-o-meter and it would be dumb to do so (albeit there are country rankings on Human Rights by organizations like Amnesty, so...)

From a personal level, you may not see any difference between slavery and genocide. But from the perspective of studying historical events and as a legal matter, the difference is pretty big.

From the perspective of historical events, slavery is much worse than genocide. Slavery is genocide turned into a profit scheme. Being a total asshat and being genocidal is horrible. Doing the same thing because it makes you a profit is much worse.

Legally, they hold the same status. Genocide and slavery are both prosecutable by any country, regardless of whether or not it happened in that country.

Let me be clear on this: The United States government can, if they can get you into custody, prosecute you for genocide (or attempting to genocide) or slavery no matter where you are in the world. Piracy too. And this isn't remotely controversial. Every remotely sane country can do the same. There aren't a lot of criminal laws that cross international lines, but genocide and slavery do.

Neeeek wrote:From the perspective of historical events, slavery is much worse than genocide. Slavery is genocide turned into a profit scheme. Being a total asshat and being genocidal is horrible. Doing the same thing because it makes you a profit is much worse.

Legally, they hold the same status. Genocide and slavery are both prosecutable by any country, regardless of whether or not it happened in that country.

Let me be clear on this: The United States government can, if they can get you into custody, prosecute you for genocide (or attempting to genocide) or slavery no matter where you are in the world. Piracy too. And this isn't remotely controversial. Every remotely sane country can do the same. There aren't a lot of criminal laws that cross international lines, but genocide and slavery do.

Neeek, seriously, stop making stuff up.

First, the legal thing:

The United States does not actually have a statute against Genocide specifically. That is reserved for the international criminal court at the Hague (an outgrowth of Nuremberg), as it falls under the category of "crime against humanity", and therefore an international matter of justice.

The United States may pass a resolution condemning what it considers to be an act of genocide like in the Bosnian Genocide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Ge ... esolutions

But the actual prosecution will be conducted by the International Court of Justice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide_Case

America in fact has a terrible record when it comes to stopping genocide, and the US doesn't really do much to help catch war criminals, largely because the US does not have jurisdiction where these people are hiding. For instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radovan_Ka ... _and_trial

This bastard was hiding in Serbia, and was hidden by his fellow Serbs. If America tried to arrest him, they'd be committing what is arguably an act of war against another state.

====

As for the legal prosecution of slavery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Present_day

Slavery is now illegal in virtually all countries in the world. The United States in particular bans it outright in its constitution.

But there are now more slaves today than at any time in history. A bigger world population is partly to blame, but the fact is there is still a huge slave industry worldwide operating in many countries while flouting the law.

Moreover, the same problem of jurisdiction applies with the United States trying to prosecute slavers. The United States isn't about to invade Myanmar and arrest the members of the military junta for their used of forced labor.

If some asshat tried to practice slavery in the United States, they can be charged with a variety of criminal cases. But the idea that the US is about to free the slaves worldwide is a fantasy.

Moreover, I will also note that there is NO similar organization as the International Court of Justice that deals with international slavery. There are various NGOs who try to pressure governments into following their own laws against slavery, but there is no international tribunal like in the case of crimes against humanity.

In short, this idea that everyone worldwide is committed to hunting down war criminals and slavers as a legal matter is a fantasy. The idea that the United States is actively leading some kind of crusade against either is doubly so.

The reality is much more simpler: In more cases than not, the United States and many countries simply lets evil prevail as long it's not happening within their own borders.

For the rest of the world, they allow evil to prevail even within their own borders.

=======

Now, as for slavery being worst because it's a "profit-making" scheme as opposed to genocide; that's a silly, silly argument because people make money out of genocide too. The Nazis didn't just try to kill the Jews. They seized their property. They used their hair, skin, and teeth for furniture materials. And it's the same for just about every other genocide in recorded history. When the Romans were wiped out the Carthaginians, they took the land of the dead Carthaginians and gave them to Roman settlers. Hell, the city they built on top of the Carthaginian lands became the fourth most important city in the whole Roman Empire and endured for something like 800 years!

Historians are very specific about holding genocide as a worse form of evil - aside from present-day legal distinctions - because trying to wipe out a people in their entirety ends that culture permanently. We don't kknow much about the Carthaginians - precisely because the Romans wiped them out. We don't have their side of the story of the Punic Wars, for instance. The Romans can depict them as greedy and treacherous and they can never refute it anymore.

Moreover, slavery can have a "happy ending" of sorts, as people can eventually break the bonds of slavery and become a free people. Genocide ends the history of an entire people. Slavery can just be a phase. It may not be great for the individuals who suffer through it, but from the perspective of humanity as a whole, it is better to have a people survive and for their culture to endure than to have them exterminated.

Zinegata wrote:
Now, as for slavery being worst because it's a "profit-making" scheme as opposed to genocide; that's a silly, silly argument because people make money out of genocide too. The Nazis didn't just try to kill the Jews. They seized their property.

Since you are wrong on so many things, and I just don't have the effort to correct you on all of them, I'll address this.

When someone becomes a slave, everything they had is seized. Slaves own nothing. Genocide being profitable is dependent on the victims being rich. Some were, some weren't. Slavery being profitable is dependent on the slavers being asshats. Or existing. Same thing in this case.

Just FYI, the ability to enforce something and the legal power to do so aren't remotely the same thing. And your knowledge of how international law works and specifically where it gets enforced is utterly laughable.

Neeeek wrote:Since you are wrong on so many things, and I just don't have the effort to correct you on all of them, I'll address this.

This is what is called "I was wrong, so instead of manning up to it I will pretend I am busy and run!"

When someone becomes a slave, everything they had is seized. Slaves own nothing.

Actually, it may shock you to learn that slaves do in fact have property rights in certain societies - including the South (but in a very limited form). The Romans (of the post-Republican period) for instance generally allowed their slaves to earn and save money, which they could eventually use to buy their own freedom. (In fact, there are very many aspects of Roman slavery that were more humane than the ones practiced by South Africa or the South).

You are ignorant about the realities of slavery, and it shows.

Just FYI, the ability to enforce something and the legal power to do so aren't remotely the same thing. And your knowledge of how international law works and specifically where it gets enforced is utterly laughable.

Oh really? Then explain why every single genocide in the past 50 years went to the International Court of Justice as opposed to the US Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... of_Justice

Rwanda and Yugoslavia both went to the ICJ, not the US as you so fancifully claim.

Moreover, if we again believe your lunatic claim that America is leading the charge in prosecuting genocide... then why is it one of the most vocal critics of the ICJ, claiming that it's just a show court meant to embarass US service men?

You're a lying asshat whose claims were blown out of the water. Now you're just hurling "Nyanyanya!" back with a single shred of evidence to back up your bullshit.

Neeek and Zinegeta:

Because your conversation fascinates me, I have to ask...are either one of you lawyers or what qualifies each of you to be so certain the other knows nothing of international law?

Game On,
fbmf

fbmf wrote:Neeek and Zinegeta:

Because your conversation fascinates me, I have to ask...are either one of you lawyers or what qualifies each of you to be so certain the other knows nothing of international law?

Game On,
fbmf

I know for a fact that Neeek is a lawyer who can tell you the fine point differences between rights afforded to the individual by the European declaration of human rights and those afforded by the US Constitution.

I can also tell you that Zinegata started his international law tirade with a claim that "Crimes Against Peace" were clearly unevenly enforced (which is true), because the Soviet Union invaded Poland and no one got charged (which is retarded, because Polish troops had already violated Ukraine's territory, meaning that "Crimes Against Peace" wouldn't apply to anything the Soviet Union did to Poland even if they were applied fairly). I'm sure Zinegata gets many of the fine points wrong, because even his very first point was a wallbanger that you could refute with a 30 second hike down Wikipedia.

Crimes Against Peace wrote:An important exception to the foregoing are defensive military actions taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such defensive actions are subject to immediate Security Council review, but do not require UN permission to be legal within international law.

Even had the UN existed at the time (which they did not), the Soviet Union would have been within their rights to invade the fuck out of Poland. The most that could have happened to them is that the Soviet Union might have been required to give Polish territory back at the end of the war - which they did anyway because by then they had a puppet state in Poland.

So from my perspective: I have clear evidence that Neeek knows what he is talking about on this issue and equally clear evidence that Zinegata does not.

-Username17

PoliteNewb wrote:

tzor wrote:So young ... don't worry ... one year you might learn something.

You can take your condescension and shove it right up your ass.

Condescend: to stoop or bend to action or speech less formal or dignified than is customary in one's social rank or importance : come down to the level of one socially inferior

Now, dear me, I haven't been condescending in any mannter whateover. I'm pontificating. There is a difference, you know.

Pontificate: to comport oneself with excessive dignity or pomposity : assume exaggerated authority or oracularity

Tzor, you win hypocrite of the year award congrats

fbmf wrote:Neeek and Zinegeta:

Because your conversation fascinates me, I have to ask...are either one of you lawyers or what qualifies each of you to be so certain the other knows nothing of international law?

Game On,
fbmf

Not a lawyer, but I am familiar with legal procedures, particularly in the case of war crimes. My friends jokingly call me a war criminal

Again a quick look at the links I already posted show very clearly that the International Court of Justice (NOT the US Supreme Court, hence not the US government) is the one that tries war criminals.

If Neeek was being honest, then he'd actually show examples of precedents wherein the United States prosecuted cases of genocide. But he isn't. Because he knows no such examples exist.

Again: the US does not actually go out of its way to capture people suspected of genocide and try them for their crimes. Radovan Karadzic for instance got away for TWELVE years for genocide. And it wasn't the FBI, the CIA, or the US Armed Forces who made the arrest. None of them could do it anyway in Serbian sovereign territory.

Edit: I did make one erroneous statement though: The United States does have one particular statute against genocide.

The United States has a law against genocide committed within its own borders, OR if the genocide was committed by an American citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_u ... cipal_laws

United States federal law recognizes the crime of genocide where it was committed within the U.S. or by a national of the U.S. (18 U.S.C. § 1091). A person found guilty of genocide can face the death penalty or life imprisonment. Persons found guilty of genocide may be denied entry or deported from the U.S.

But again, this is still very far from Neeek's fantasy:

The United States government can, if they can get you into custody, prosecute you for genocide (or attempting to genocide) or slavery no matter where you are in the world.

The United States will not, and has never, gone into places like Rwanda and prosecute war criminals on their behalf. As far as the United States is concerned, Africans or Bosnians or Cambodians can genocide one another as long as it's not an American citizen doing the genocide.


======

On a somewhat related note, I find it totally hilarious that people are arguing with me when I argue that "the United States is doing very little to prevent or prosecute genocide", with the implication it should do a heck of a lot more.

But nooo. Rather than admit that letting shitheads like Radovan hide for 12 years is "bad" they'd argue with me about how awesome the United States is and how it will go to any country to prosecute genocide and slavery.

Really, who's the side that's supposed to be excusing evil again?

FrankTrollman wrote:I know for a fact that Neeek is a lawyer who can tell you the fine point differences between rights afforded to the individual by the European declaration of human rights and those afforded by the US Constitution.

And I know for a fact that you're full of shit on this issue because you should know damn well that the basis for applying laws is precedence.

Show precedence of the United States prosecuting war criminals from another country without referral to an International court.

I can also tell you that Zinegata started his international law tirade with a claim that "Crimes Against Peace" were clearly unevenly enforced (which is true), because the Soviet Union invaded Poland and no one got charged (which is retarded, because Polish troops had already violated Ukraine's territory, meaning that "Crimes Against Peace" wouldn't apply to anything the Soviet Union did to Poland even if they were applied fairly).

That's just outright historical revisionism, Frank, and you know it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

This is the treaty which the Nazis were convicted for signing. Notice how it's called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Molotov being the Soviet foreign minister?

If signing that treaty and agreeing to secrety invade another country is a crime against peace, then the Soviets should totally be guilty too.

But no, you have to try and wash the Soviet Union's hands by citing the fact that Poland invaded Ukraine during the Polish-Soviet War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_War

But that's moot, because the Soviet Union and Poland had already signed a peace treaty at the end of that war back in 1921:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Riga

And the Poles in fact handed back most of the territories that they had conquered. The few territories they kept were from Ukraine, yes, but it's also worth noting that at the time that Ukraine was actively revolting against the Soviet Union itself during the time.

In short, the Soviet Union had no real casus belli against Poland. Honorable countries do not sign a peace treaty in 1921 and then agree to invade them in partnership with another dictatorship 18 years later.

I'm sure Zinegata gets many of the fine points wrong, because even his very first point was a wallbanger that you could refute with a 30 second hike down Wikipedia.

So why don't you? Again, all bluster, no real facts. The fact that Neeek went on his tirade claiming that the United States actively hunts down and prosecutes war criminals when there have been ZERO such trials in the United States (or even US forces involved in capturing such war criminals) shows that while you may be a lawyer, you don't have to be honest.

So from my perspective: I have clear evidence that Neeek knows what he is talking about on this issue and equally clear evidence that Zinegata does not.

-Username17

Ah yes, and yet you haven't provided any evidence of the US prosecuting people who committed genocide at all. Bravo sir for you valiant attempts to wash the Soviet Union's hands for their blatant crimes against peace and ignoring that the United State's track record on prosecuting genocide is total shit.

Zinegata wrote:And I know for a fact that you're full of shit on this issue because you should know damn well that the basis for applying laws is precedence.

I'm pretty sure this is only true in nations based on common law (as opposed to civil law). The USA is, however, a nation based on common law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law ... _system%29