The Gaming Den

Wikipedia wrote:While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Anyone who doesn't think that the Ugandan provisions qualify as genocide by the actual legal definition is a moron. The only available arguments are:

• Gays don't qualify as a "national group" because they are essentially evenly distributed through society.
• The conditions of murdering all the people who have a lot of gay sex and imprisoning everyone who fails to be sufficiently helpful in the rounding up and eradication of everyone who has gay sex more than once is not calculated to physically destroy the gay population because gay people are entirely capable of never having sex in their whole lives.
• Since gay sex doesn't create births anyway, no amount of murdering gays this generation will meaningfully impact how many gays are born next generation.

And you know what? All those arguments are stupid, and anyone who makes any of those arguments is stupid, or evil, or both.

I think that PR was trying to claim that merely creating conditions that were designed to be completely intolerable to gays and then systematically eliminating part of the population wasn't genocide because you weren't killing them all at once. But the UN's own legal definition of genocide specifically rejects that argument. So at best we could assume that PR is trying to play arm chair lawyer, arguing for a narrow legal reading of a law h obviously has not read.

-Username17

The closest thing to a leg PR had to stand on was pointing out that Rick Warren cut off ties and publicly denounced the bill, but then threw in a spoonful of stupid by claiming that calling the bill genocide to be hyperbole (or something).

virgileso wrote:The closest thing to a leg PR had to stand on was pointing out that Rick Warren cut off ties and publicly denounced the bill, but then threw in a spoonful of stupid by claiming that calling the bill genocide to be hyperbole (or something).

That would be a leg to stand on. I mean, it's still wrong, but it's a leg to stand on.

The fact is that Rick Warren hasn't cut ties. And while he publicly denounced the bill, he did so in the United States rather than in Uganda, and only after:

• He had been grilled on the horrors that his organization was funding for weeks.
  and
• Members of the Ugandan legislature announced that they were going to work on a compromise version because of all the opposition around the world.

Which means that Rick Warren wasn't publicly against the bill until after it didn't matter coming or going. And he still hasn't stopped funding the people who made the first draft to begin with. Rick Warren is still working to kill all the gays, he just made a non-apology in another country to try to get idiots to think it was all a big misunderstanding.

And obviously it worked: because PR thinks it was all a big misunderstanding.

-Username17

Psychic Robot wrote:I will now post a link to a picture that accurately describes the content of this thread: click.

What a wonderful drawing of ubernoob, or was that Frank?

FrankTrollman wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Anyone who doesn't think that the Ugandan provisions qualify as genocide by the actual legal definition is a moron.

Invert that, anyone who thinks that the Ugandan provisions qualify as genocide by the actual legal definition above is guilty of failure to think (or read). Gays are neither "national" nor are they "ethnical" nor are they "racial" nor are they "religious" as a "group." Nor is it clear that the law "intends to destroy" the group. Nor is it clear that it is " deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."

Just because it does not qualify as "genocide" by the above definition does not in any way lessen the fact that it is a bad law, if not outright vile.

P.S. Is this where I casually mention (much like casually pulling the pin on a hand grenade and casually lobbing ot over) that by the above definition of Genocide, abortion technically qualifies?

"...imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group..."

Modern Eugenics: How Abortion is Getting Rid of "Undesirables"

Abortion and Race:For decades, abortion has disproportionately targeted minority babies.

The Reverend Clenard H. Childress calls this phenomenon "black genocide", and has built a national ministry around the exposure of what he calls "the greatest deception [to] plague the black church since Lucifer himself".

Minorities suffer most from liberalized abortion

Minority women constitute about 13 percent of the U.S. female population (age 15 to 44), but underwent approximately 36 percent of the abortions. Do the math. For every three black babies conceived in their mother's womb, only two live to see its mother's face. That, my friends, is called genocide.

(Wow, look at the flying debris ... only goes to show you ... "genocide" is such an overused word these days.)

tzor wrote:Minorities suffer most from liberalized abortion

Minority women constitute about 13 percent of the U.S. female population (age 15 to 44), but underwent approximately 36 percent of the abortions. Do the math. For every three black babies conceived in their mother's womb, only two live to see its mother's face. That, my friends, is called genocide.

(Wow, look at the flying debris ... only goes to show you ... "genocide" is such an overused word these days.)

Dude, are you seriously trying to draw an analogue between an unthinking mass of cells and a person sentient enough to have a sexual orientation (as opposed to instinct)?

tzor wrote: Nor is it clear that the law "intends to destroy" the group. Nor is it clear that it is " deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."

Wow.

Up until I read this thread, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now you just proved to me that you really are just as profoundly retarded as you are depicted to be by the other members of this board. I'm talking illiteracy levels of retardedness here.

Can you honestly read that part of your post and the actual facts it concerned and not see how obviously and blatantly wrong you are ? I am actually not sure if you are trolling or if you've been programmed to just disagree with "godless liberals" (or whatever) no matter what the subject.

ubernoob wrote:Dude, are you seriously trying to draw an analogue between an unthinking mass of cells and a person sentient enough to have a sexual orientation (as opposed to instinct)?

In this case the answer is no; let's look again at the quote in question ...

"...imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group..."

let's highlight it for the sake of the ideologically blinded

"...imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group..."

Abortions are measures intended to prevent births. Right?

They're not imposed, you fucking retard.

The Vigilante wrote:Up until I read this thread, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now you just proved to me that you really are just as profoundly retarded as you are depicted to be by the other members of this board. I'm talking illiteracy levels of retardedness here.

Can you honestly read that part of your post and the actual facts it concerned and not see how obviously and blatantly wrong you are ? I am actually not sure if you are trolling or if you've been programmed to just disagree with "godless liberals" (or whatever) no matter what the subject.

OK, can we go back to the video tape here? I mean I could just assume you are just to fucking stupid to go back a few pages, but do you even know what the fuck you are talking about? Well here it is.

According to his bill, those convicted of having gay sex with disabled people and those under the 18 would face the death penalty.

Yes it's stupid. Yes it is way over the top. It is a punishment that does not fit the crime (but I'm sure you godless liberals would love to impose that penalty on the first Catholic Priest you saw even if they didn't do the act in the first place) but it is not genocide! To suggest such a thing is to disgrace to all who have died to genocide.

The Vigilante wrote:They're not imposed, you fucking retard.

Yes they are, you fucking bastard.

tzor wrote:

The Vigilante wrote:Up until I read this thread, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now you just proved to me that you really are just as profoundly retarded as you are depicted to be by the other members of this board. I'm talking illiteracy levels of retardedness here.

Can you honestly read that part of your post and the actual facts it concerned and not see how obviously and blatantly wrong you are ? I am actually not sure if you are trolling or if you've been programmed to just disagree with "godless liberals" (or whatever) no matter what the subject.

OK, can we go back to the video tape here? I mean I could just assume you are just to fucking stupid to go back a few pages, but do you even know what the fuck you are talking about? Well here it is.

According to his bill, those convicted of having gay sex with disabled people and those under the 18 would face the death penalty.

Yes it's stupid. Yes it is way over the top. It is a punishment that does not fit the crime (but I'm sure you godless liberals would love to impose that penalty on the first Catholic Priest you saw even if they didn't do the act in the first place) but it is not genocide! To suggest such a thing is to disgrace to all who have died to genocide.

OK, you are illiterate. Thanks for clearing that up. Now if you'll read my post again, you'll notice I'm not debating about wether or not it is genocide. I'm just pointing out the fact that you are indeed arguing that having the death penalty for certain categories of homosexual, prison for others, banning homosexual activities by Ugandan nationals OUTSIDE Uganda, banning LGBT activism etc, is not intended to "destroy the group" or "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". This is purely dishonest, I mean how can KILLING (some) gays not result in physical destruction of part of the group ? That's pretty much the fucking definition of physical destruction of part of a group...

tzor wrote:

The Vigilante wrote:They're not imposed, you fucking retard.

Yes they are, you fucking bastard.

Tell me all about those forced abortions now.

tzor wrote:

ubernoob wrote:Dude, are you seriously trying to draw an analogue between an unthinking mass of cells and a person sentient enough to have a sexual orientation (as opposed to instinct)?

In this case the answer is no; let's look again at the quote in question ...

"...imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group..."

let's highlight it for the sake of the ideologically blinded

"...imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group..."

Abortions are measures intended to prevent births. Right?

Genocide wrote:a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

Tell me which one of these a fetus is. If you can prove that it fits under any of these, then the cattle farmers in west texas are *also* committing genocide because steak is delicious.

Under no moral code that makes it wrong to kill a fetus is it not wrong to kill a cow.

The Vigilante wrote:Tell me all about those forced abortions now.

He means that the abortion is forced from the perspective of the fetus (they're not asked to be aborted). No need to start hurling expletives over that; especially since nobody here is going to budge on whether the fetus counts as a child, and all of the protections any child is naturally expected to have.

virgileso wrote:

The Vigilante wrote:Tell me all about those forced abortions now.

He means that the abortion is forced from the perspective of the fetus (they're not asked to be aborted). No need to start hurling expletives over that; especially since nobody here is going to budge on whether the fetus counts as a child, and all of the protections any child is naturally expected to have.

Fetuses have fewer feelings than cows. Under this sort of logic, ranchers are committing genocide.

Yes, this logic is retarded. Yes, I'm fairly certain you are also aware of this.

virgileso wrote:

The Vigilante wrote:Tell me all about those forced abortions now.

He means that the abortion is forced from the perspective of the fetus (they're not asked to be aborted). No need to start hurling expletives over that; especially since nobody here is going to budge on whether the fetus counts as a child, and all of the protections any child is naturally expected to have.

Oh. Sorry then, english isn't my first language and I don't encounter that kind of fuzzy logic regarding abortion where I'm from, so I kind of assumed he was talking about the would-be mother's perspective. So if I understand correctly, ethnic minorities would be committing genocide on themselves, with the help of liberal doctors ?

Anyway, Tzor, I apologize, I misread your argument, even if I really don't agree with your perspective, I must admit I didn't understand what you meant by "imposed abortions".

The Vigilante wrote:I must admit I didn't understand what you meant by "imposed abortions".

Not your fault since he is essentially using slight of hand, lies, and just plain making shit up here. His definition is in defiance of the common term and reality in general.

And he still hasn't apologized to humanity in general for his LAST utterly shameless and especially disgusting lies in regards to abortions saving the lives of women.

So you shouldn't be giving that slimy shit bag the time of day.

ubernoob wrote:

tzor wrote:"...imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group..."

Genocide wrote:a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

Tell me which one of these a fetus is.

Again, where did I mention "fetus?" No really, I ...can't see how one can stretch the notion of killing a fetus as a way to prevent the fetus from giving birth ...

The point is that abortion is deliberately promoted to (1) African Americans and (2) Hispanics in such large proportions relative to white populations that the result is in effect a systematic program to prevent births among those two racial / ethnic groups.

virgileso wrote:

The Vigilante wrote:Tell me all about those forced abortions now.

He means that the abortion is forced from the perspective of the fetus (they're not asked to be aborted).

No I mean what I meant. There are a significant number of abortions performed in the United States that are a result of outside pressure (first from the bastard who got get pregnant in the first place and then more often than not her own flesh and blood parents) and not the "choice" of the woman involved. These numbers are greater among the minority communities. This isn't rocket science, this was something that has been going on since the beginning of time. It was the principle reason why the greatest Feminist of the 19th century Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion. "When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged."

Don't you need the consent of the pregnant woman in the United States to give an abortion ? I guess if she's a minor then she can't really choose for herself and it'd come to the parents' choice, but otherwise how can a doctor legally give an abortion to an unwilling, adult woman ?

PhoneLobster wrote:

The Vigilante wrote:I must admit I didn't understand what you meant by "imposed abortions".

Not your fault since he is essentially using slight of hand, lies, and just plain making shit up here. His definition is in defiance of the common term and reality in general.

And he still hasn't apologized to humanity in general for his LAST utterly shameless and especially disgusting lies in regards to abortions saving the lives of women.

So you shouldn't be giving that slimy shit bag the time of day.

I always apologize when I misunderstand or misjudge someone, no matter who it is, it's just how I was raised. Now apparently I didn't even misunderstand him, but that's another matter entirely...

The Vigilante wrote:Don't you need the consent of the pregnant woman in the United States to give an abortion?

Tecnically, yes, but considering that there is no adversarial system in abortion clinics to verify this and when you have those people who pressured the woman still outside and fully aware if she doesn't go through with it, many abortion clinics are not as throughough as you might expect.

tzor wrote:

The Vigilante wrote:Don't you need the consent of the pregnant woman in the United States to give an abortion?

Tecnically, yes, but considering that there is no adversarial system in abortion clinics to verify this and when you have those people who pressured the woman still outside and fully aware if she doesn't go through with it, many abortion clinics are not as throughough as you might expect.

Would you be willing to admit that the reverse could be true ? That some women would prefer an abortion, but because of family pressure etc, are forced to go through with the pregnancy ?

With apologies for the delay: Ramnza and I have been out visiting the family.
[/TGFBS]