Genocide

How many precious people you need to have eliminated so it is called genocide?

  • 10

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • 1,000

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • 10,000

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • 100,000

    Votes: 4 26.7%
  • 1,000,000

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • 10,000,000 or more.

    Votes: 2 13.3%

  • Total voters
    15
numbers dont count- its how directed it is against a single greoup of people, and weather or not those people were agressive or not towards the person who accused of genocide, and weather or not the person accused wanted at least what he did in terms of death, or it jus happend to be that high (though still, the first point I made is the most important)-

example-

Hitler,Mao, and Stalin all are guilty of Genocide

Hernan Cortez is {b]possibley[/b] guilty of genocide

most conqerors are NOT guilty of genocide
 
My definition of genocide is the organised, systematic killing of human beings by other human beings. By that definition, all war is genocide.
 
but your definition dose not match the definition of genocide-

the systematic destruction of a racial or cultural group.
 
Originally posted by Comraddict
How many worthless people you need to kill to make a genocide?

Worthless people? To whom? Who is going to decide which ones are worhtless or not?
 
Xen, what if I ordered the killing of 100,000 people, but the victims were evenly distributed among all ethnic groups, that wouldnt be genocide?
 
@ pothead- no, as it is not systematic- unless it was systemtic- but in way you present it, it seems like it was just a random coincidence, unintended by anyone-
 
Originally posted by Comraddict
agree or not, I think genocide is very related to number of people killed.

dose that mean killing the last 4 people of a isloted tribe in south america is not genocide, while having a war in which, 50,000 indians, and 100,000 chinese is genocide?
 
Xen, youre absolutely correct about the dictionary definition of the word. But what would you call killing 100,000 people of all ethnic groups, 'mass murder'?
 
Originally posted by Dumb pothead
Xen, youre absolutely correct about the dictionary definition of the word. But what would you call killing 100,000 people of all ethnic groups, 'mass murder'?

I think "megacide" is the word.
 
it depends- if they are killed in a war,and by that I mean fighting as soldires for there nation, then no, but if they are killed in a manner befit more the nazi concentration camps, then yes

murdur is a term to often used- it cannot be used in the case of soldires against soldires- as each willing puts his life on the line for his nation (conscprits are just that, conscripts, and not true soldires)

therfore, mass murdure can only be applied to non combatent people of a single ethinic group
 
I think you should be careful about having so many words for killing. It implies that some mass killing of humans is ok as long as you use the right word to describe it.
 
none of it is truelly okay- but there are justifacations for war somtimes
 
at least 1million need to die, otherwise you're just a wanna-be.
 
This is yet another example of the connotations of a word overcoming the denotations.

100 000 random dead people is mass homocide, or as someone coined it 'megacide', if you will.

100 killings of people due to ethnic/cultural group is genocide.

The first is bad, but ignoring the connotations of the word genocide, does not fit in that category.

Is the root word in "genocide", "gene"?
 
Originally posted by Sobieski II
Is the root word in "genocide", "gene"?
It comes from the greek genos, which means race.

Edit:
But genocide can happen even without bloodshed (i.e. assimilation). While this seems more "humane", it is equally appaling.
 
I would like to use genocide on flies. Fruitflies, houseflies, horseflies, the whole lot of them.

But then I'd upset the delicate ecostructure and we'd be overrun with giraffe or something.
 
Top Bottom