Eliakon wrote:None of which has any relevance to arguing that you can not simply get out of the claim of genocide by simply claiming that your target doesn't fall under the heading
The heading of 'animal'? I agree that if you define it as hurting persons you can define people as non-persons, but since we have mainstream media use of it against animals (non-human wildlife, whales and such) that's a broader definition.
The CS might not define things like Elementals as Animals but I think they'd be okay doing that with dragons/trolls/etc. Even if it is a non-Earth animal.
Eliakon wrote:The relocation of children with the intent to alter the culture IS genocide (example would be the US American Indian School program)
Not according to the CCW (more enlightened than us). I also wonder if any quotes from the term originator indicate this interpretation.
Did Raphael Lemkin talk about relocating Jewish children as 'genocide', or was he indicating the killing of children as the actual genocide?
Also: you do realize that CPS rescuing children from abusive parents would qualify as genocide under this definition, right? You're intending to altering their culture (taking them away from abuse/poverty) by relocating them.
Same with forcing kids to go to school and having truancy officers pursue them, this is also forcible relocation to alter culture (to introduce education and remove them from the street culture which is dangerous).
Eliakon wrote:so we can remove the forced breeding (which technically is simply a Crime Against Humanity)
According to the UN, I guess. Can't recall what the CS has to say about it. Guessing the CCW would classify it as rape even though it's possible to force breeding without sex (artificial insemination directly through the pelvic wall instead of genitals). One could call creating new beings through theft of genetic materials (whether you are being cloned or having seed stolen) as part of forced breeding. Enforcement tends to be focused 1-sided on behalf of 1 gender though.
Eliakon wrote:1) what you think doesn't matter if it contradicts the definition
There is no 'the definition', please specify "the Rome Statute" so as not to impart your chosen definition with undue authority or prominence.
Eliakon wrote:2) yes it is genocide if its being used for a genocidal purpose (in this case the deliberate destruction of free dogboy society)
The CS do not destroy free dogboy society, they are stated as hiring freeborn dogboys as mercenaries in Lone Star. They only explicitly destroy runaways/escapeds.
Destroying people if they do something bad and break obligations is not genocide. By this reasoning, executing people in the military for desertion is a genocide.
In anticipation of arguments that Dog Boys in the army have no choice since they are forcibly conscripted: so are a lot of humans. Even now the US (paragon of virtue for signing this Rome Statute?) has Selective Service mandates which allow them to re-introduce the draft and conscript males.
Eliakon wrote:It doesn't matter if you don't like the definition. The definition says that it is genocide to exterminate a culture (this is why you can have genocide on earth and still not wipe out all humans)
read: "The Rome Statute definition"
How loosely can we define a culture though?
Is murdering a culture? If so, this would make government executions of murderers genocide. Is firing on police a culture? If so, this would make police defending with lethal force a genocide. Is being an unwanted child a culture? If so, this would make abortions a genocide.
If not, why not? What are the requirements?
Eliakon wrote:Yes, that is genocide. You have exterminated the species as it was
The species survives, it is just changed. If changing a species is a genocide then evolution is genocide. I guess Sea Titans or Ogres or Amazons reproducing with humans is also genocidal in nature.
If changing people to full conversion borgs is genocide, what about smaller degrees of change? If I chop off the right arm of every human and replace it with a bionic limb, is that genocide?
If I enslave a species, I change their culture, that is genocide?
If I defeat a species (even in self defense) I also change their culture, that should also be genocide, right?
If I am defeated by an invading species, I could also change their culture, that's also genocide.
Eliakon wrote:I would like to point out that this 'example' is getting pretty close to the point of being a strawman. Its an extremely exotic, extreme example(erasing the memory of spider man) that is twisted to fit (spider man is defined as the culture) and then that is shown to be some how disproving the rule being argued (that exterminating cultures is genocide)
Spider-Man is not a culture, but a city of New Yorkers and people around the world knowing who Peter Parker is, is certainly part of culture.
I am pointing out that there is a line between "exterminating" a culture and simply "changing" it. Changing people into full conversion borgs changes the culture heavily, but it doesn't exterminate it.
100% exterminating a culture is very difficult, and even in the case of moving native children around, putting them in English schools, you do not actually annihilate it. Rather you heavily compromise the passing on of preceding home-born beliefs and emphasize the passing on of newly imported ones. That could be a 5/95 split in the end but it is not extermination. More like... desaturation... watering down, etc.
Eliakon wrote:Its not slippery at all. Its pretty simple. If you are deliberately trying to wipe out a culture its genocide. That genocide can be done by murder or through other means.
Trying to wipe out a culture is genocidAL but I don't think it would qualify as a genocide unless you succeeded in doing so (or at least a significant amount of damage, like the 1% req CCW puts on it).
Otherwise, if 'trying' was enough, then if some guy says "I am going to kill all the dolphins on earth" but the police manage to stop him before he bombs one living at Marine Land, the guy was genocidal, but the mere attempt at genocide was not actually a genocide.
Eliakon wrote:The CS is genocidal against all other cultures but their own, yes.
Source?
Is it genocidal against the NGR?
Eliakon wrote:Again if it is used to destroy a culture its genocide.
I think we are stomping on the "gene" biological root of the word by shifting away from a familial ethnic group and changing into a cultural one.
I understand the value doing this in some respects, but considering how "culture" is a pretty inclusive label, it risks making pretty much any aggression a genocide.
IE it is now a genocide if I kill all the rogue scholars, even though the scholarship they engage in can be widely different.
Eliakon wrote:it does seem that being vat grown is the norm.
Lone Star 24 says that only 1/10 of them are tube-grown, as natural birth is more cost-effective.
This also led me to notice a discrepency:
(page 24) Feral young are also destroyed for fear of anti-social (anti-Coalition) contamination. Only those under a year and a half old may be spared, taken into custody and placed into "The Program."
(page 39) The Coalition military never accepts never accepts feral renegades or their offspring into their ranks. Only infants under the age of 16 weeks may be considered for adoption into the Dog Boy Corps.
Not sure how to resolve this... a year and a half would be 78 weeks (52+26).
Could "The Program" refer to something different from the Coalition military's Dog Boy Corps?
Perhaps feral renegades' offspring/young over 16 weeks (and under 78) but instead of putting them in the military/Corps they use them for other lower-security/risk roles?
Borast wrote:forcibly making everyone full conversion 'borgs would be such, as humans would no longer be able to procreate.
Untrue, you could store their sperm/eggs in cryo-stasis prior to converting them to do a later tube-growth, or clone them from the remaining cells in their spine/brain.
Also: this could be done to an already infertile species, effectively losing nothing.
*wonders if you can turn Zavor into borgs using iron scalpels and stuff*
Borast wrote:destroying a CULTURE is also included in the Genocide definition, however, only if done deliberately. If another culture absorbs a culture and the absorbed culture vanishes off the face of the earth forever, that is not.
Still a lot of grey area, like whether merging or naturalizing is 'destroying' a culture or merely adding to it.
If the CS decided to kill all chess players, all people who knew the rules of chess, destroy all rules of chess, then since they are trying to destroy chess culture, this is genocide? Seems needlessly broad to me. What would Lemkin think of this? Does he consider 'chess players' a "geno" a "people" in the same way he does the Jews?
Borast wrote:the restriction of literacy in the Coalition is not Genocide. It is a reversion to an earlier culture
Er... wouldn't that mean that if Jews wiped out Muslims or if Catholics wiped out Mormons or if Aztec wiped out Scientologists that it wouldn't be a genocide because they're an earlier culture?
Borast wrote:if loosing a skillset was classified as Genocide, the educational systems in the Western World TODAY would be guilty...they have stopped teaching cursive writing, and (in some areas); the teaching of the logical process behind math...in other words, they are letting kids do all the work on calculators instead of puzzling it out themselves.
[/quote]
I agree. I think the key here is that there's a difference between not helping to spread a culture and trying to annihilate it.
Taking something out of the curriculum of your mandatory schooling isn't exactly wiping something out, although you are taking up time and resources that might compete for the spreading of those things you are not endorsing.
