2d ago

"As a centralist, all points must be considered. From giving women rights, to exterminating the culturally inferior."

You're viewing a single thread.

124 comments

When genocide and no genocide are both too extreme, maybe a little genocide? Or a genocide far away? Or maybe killing a group that doesn't qualify the definition of genocide?
- Or maybe killing a group that doesn't qualify the definition of genocide?
  yeah let's kill a group of people that is not a group of people
  
  Killing the rich wouldn't be genocide.
  
  But it would be pretty based.
  
  that's only because they aren't a sufficiently large enough group of people
  
  The number of people is irrelevant, it's because being rich isn't a protected class.
  To use another example, it used to be legal way back when to sell cocaine and put it in soft drinks. "Cocaine sellers" were a group of people, but not a protected one. Criminalizing that group of people and explicitly trying to make that group not exist anymore isn't a genocide, because "cocaine sellers" can't reasonably be considered a protected class.
  Likewise, Antebellum culture in the southern US was heavily influenced by slavery, and slaveowners were eliminated as a group of people, but that's not genocide, because slaveowners are not a protected class.
  
  Just shoot madly into a crowd with a low rate of fire. Totally ethical since it's absolutely random.
  
  congrats you have invented terrorism
  
  Just kill 50% at random. Perfectly balanced
  
  I understood that reference.
  
  Which niche, obscure, underappreciated work of art is that comment referring to?
  
  Half Baked
  
  Well you see that's why the case must be made they are slightly less human.
  
  We'll kill everyone born at 1pm
  
  yeah fuck those guys
  
  In a strict reading, killing LGBTQ wouldn't be genocide because they aren't all related. On the other hand, they do form a (sub) culture. You can argue both ways but they technically don't tick all the boxes. So it's as bad but not jurisprudentially genocide so maybe a compromise we can convince our centrist friend of?
  
  it depends how pedantic you are about the exact definition but I think (or hope) most people agree that would be genocide
  
  It's contrieved. Genocide is about ending procreation. Is somebody LGBTQ when they procreate?
  
  They do procreate but not necessarily LGBTQ people
  
  Lmafo queer people procreate all the time. Are you being serious right now?
  
  no
  
  Lesbians can have children on their own if they have sperm from a bank. I met a couple doing that last year and I’ve known lesbian couples who have raised really beautiful families this way.
  Gay men use surrogates or they adopt. Not very different from how Musk uses surrogates with his baby mamas. Also, it’s not uncommon for gay men to marry women and have children.
  Bisexual people can be attracted to any type of human. Bisexuals are often in straight looking couples. You probably know a lot of bisexuals without knowing it. Bisexuals often marry each other, too in M/F pairing. Unless bisexuals are sterile they have no issues having children. They very often do. But they can also use all other fertility methods.
  Trans people can have children. This includes trans men (biological women who transition can still get pregnant). And trans women (men who transition can still get others pregnant). Both can be in relationships with people that can either get them pregnant or get their partner pregnant. I actually knew a trans man who got pregnant multiple times by their non-trans husband.
  Queer is a huge group and it includes Asexual people. Asexual people can still have sex, get pregnant, and get others pregnant.
  Adoption and surrogates are open to all people. Including normal straight couples. Anyone can have children if they want children. In America, parenthood is a fundamental right.
  
  And to define that this group of people I hate is not a group of people, we asked this judge to weight on the matter.
  No we didn't bribe them. Trust me bro.

124 comments