Necessitating Violence

[Conserative Morality]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

I'm really liking this thing tonight. Thanks to Wallenburg for pointing it out.

Are you saying then, that you do accept people literally being shot down in the streets as being slaughtered down in the streets without a need for a numerical qualifier?

[Vashty]

It also means closed to debate. If you think you've got your worldview sorted, why are you here debating it?

I was not using in a why to suggest it was not open to debate, I was expressing my disgust of apocryphal historical revisionism. This is a really petty thing to be arguing. Can we stop?

Historical revisionism is simply historical research and hypothesis put forward by people other than people who were alive at the time and perhaps with new perspectives/technology/revelations to uncover. Be careful not to confuse Holocaust deniers with the people that found out that Aristotle was telling lies when he said flies have 4 legs.

I can't understand your problem with it, unless you do mean the Holocaust deniers etc.

[The East Marches]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

I'm really liking this thing tonight. Thanks to Wallenburg for pointing it out.

Are you saying then, that you do accept people literally being shot down in the streets as being slaughtered down in the streets without a need for a numerical qualifier?

I don't know if the 50's and the 60's meets the academic standard for that. You put words in my mouth before I could finish my calculations on what even constitutes such a standard. Talk about jumping the gun.

[Conserative Morality]

I don't know if the 50's and the 60's meets the academic standard for that.

So there's an academic standard now, is there?

You put words in my mouth before I could finish my calculations on what even constitutes such a standard. Talk about jumping the gun.

You suggested averaging the Holodomor, the Armenian Genocide, and the Holocaust. I simply took your preliminary standard and brought it to its logical conclusion in order to get you to answer either that people being shot down in the streets *was* being slaughtered in the streets, or not. I take it since you're still blathering about calculations the answer is 'not'?

[Republic of the Cristo]

I was not using in a why to suggest it was not open to debate, I was expressing my disgust of apocryphal historical revisionism. This is a really petty thing to be arguing. Can we stop?

Historical revisionism is simply historical research and hypothesis put forward by people other than people who were alive at the time and perhaps with new perspectives/technology/revelations to uncover. Be careful not to confuse Holocaust deniers with the people that found out that Aristotle was telling lies when he said flies have 4 legs.

I can't understand your problem with it, unless you do mean the Holocaust deniers etc.

I mean people such as the holocaust deniers. More generally, people who change history to fit an ideological agenda.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

I'm just not seeing an einsatzgruppen or carnivals of death going on.

I'm not hungry, therefore...

[Vashty]

Historical revisionism is simply historical research and hypothesis put forward by people other than people who were alive at the time and perhaps with new perspectives/technology/revelations to uncover. Be careful not to confuse Holocaust deniers with the people that found out that Aristotle was telling lies when he said flies have 4 legs.

I can't understand your problem with it, unless you do mean the Holocaust deniers etc.

I mean people such as the holocaust deniers. More generally, people who change history to fit an ideological agenda.

You don't need to change history to have an opinion on it. You can see things in another light, that's called an opinion on something that isn't completely objective. For example, no-one really knows who in the Bolshevik Party of 1917 had the best moustache, but say it was agreed only a few years by the majority of Western academic historians that Lenin's beard was the best, that would be the consensus view. But what if someone says Trotsky's beard was the best? Are you going to shut down the conversation because you disagree with them? Just because it's revisionary?

[The East Marches]

So there's an academic standard now, is there?

I don't know if you followed the previous line of conversation but there should be. I mean, if we are going to start slinging accusations of people being "slaughtered in the streets", don't you think there should be a standard of some sort? I mean, we have a standard for determining murder versus manslaughter. Who is to say that isn't a bad case of the "oppression".

You suggested averaging the Holodomor, the Armenian Genocide, and the Holocaust. I simply took your preliminary standard and brought it to its logical conclusion in order to get you to answer either that people being shot down in the streets *was* being slaughtered in the streets, or not. I take it since you're still blathering about calculations the answer is 'not'?

I said maybe average those. Like I stated before, I'd have to do more research before I could properly quantify it. Maybe the Russian pogroms against Jews would be a better judge of it?

[The East Marches]

I'm just not seeing an einsatzgruppen or carnivals of death going on.

I'm not hungry, therefore...

I'm gonna play the privilege game, therefore....

[Vashty]

So there's an academic standard now, is there?

I don't know if you followed the previous line of conversation but there should be. I mean, if we are going to start slinging accusations of people being "slaughtered in the streets", don't you think there should be a standard of some sort? I mean, we have a standard for determining murder versus manslaughter. Who is to say that isn't a bad case of the "oppression".

You suggested averaging the Holodomor, the Armenian Genocide, and the Holocaust. I simply took your preliminary standard and brought it to its logical conclusion in order to get you to answer either that people being shot down in the streets *was* being slaughtered in the streets, or not. I take it since you're still blathering about calculations the answer is 'not'?

I said maybe average those. Like I stated before, I'd have to do more research before I could properly quantify it. Maybe the Russian pogroms against Jews would be a better judge of it?

Wow. Cmon guys, NS doesn't need fucking peer review.

[The East Marches]

I don't know if you followed the previous line of conversation but there should be. I mean, if we are going to start slinging accusations of people being "slaughtered in the streets", don't you think there should be a standard of some sort? I mean, we have a standard for determining murder versus manslaughter. Who is to say that isn't a bad case of the "oppression".



I said maybe average those. Like I stated before, I'd have to do more research before I could properly quantify it. Maybe the Russian pogroms against Jews would be a better judge of it?

Wow. Cmon guys, NS doesn't need fucking peer review.

Well... previously threads have indicated to me that some NSers, especially our friends on the left, will only take academically peer reviewed papers/journals. I was merely trying to meet their high standard of evidence. You can hardly blame a man for trying to please.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

So there's an academic standard now, is there?

I don't know if you followed the previous line of conversation but there should be. I mean, if we are going to start slinging accusations of people being "slaughtered in the streets", don't you think there should be a standard of some sort? I mean, we have a standard for determining murder versus manslaughter. Who is to say that isn't a bad case of the "oppression".

Yeah, we have a hard and fast standard for genocide after all.

[Republic of the Cristo]

I mean people such as the holocaust deniers. More generally, people who change history to fit an ideological agenda.

You don't need to change history to have an opinion on it. You can see things in another light, that's called an opinion on something that isn't completely objective. For example, no-one really knows who in the Bolshevik Party of 1917 had the best moustache, but say it was agreed only a few years by the majority of Western academic historians that Lenin's beard was the best, that would be the consensus view. But what if someone says Trotsky's beard was the best? Are you going to shut down the conversation because you disagree with them? Just because it's revisionary?

That is an example of opinion, you are not trying to change history or cast it in a some sort of preferential light. Saying that the CSA is entirely conservative is an example of ideological revisionism because it is both incorrect and has been done so to fit an ideological aim.

[The East Marches]

I don't know if you followed the previous line of conversation but there should be. I mean, if we are going to start slinging accusations of people being "slaughtered in the streets", don't you think there should be a standard of some sort? I mean, we have a standard for determining murder versus manslaughter. Who is to say that isn't a bad case of the "oppression".

Yeah, we have a hard and fast standard for genocide after all.

Well, the UN and ICC do I believe. If you are going to accuse somebody of a crime, you better have a standard that has to be met.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

Yeah, we have a hard and fast standard for genocide after all.

Well, the UN and ICC do I believe. If you are going to accuse somebody of a crime, you better have a standard that has to be met.

I'm looking at the numbers right now and starting to seriously doubt the Nazis hit the quota for a First Class Genocide. We might have to demote them to just an Honors Genocide.

[Conserative Morality]

I don't know if you followed the previous line of conversation but there should be.

So there isn't an academic standard it can meet and your response about you not knowing whether it could meet it was just hot air.

I mean, if we are going to start slinging accusations of people being "slaughtered in the streets", don't you think there should be a standard of some sort? I mean, we have a standard for determining murder versus manslaughter. Who is to say that isn't a bad case of the "oppression".

There should be a standard. Just like there's a standard for genocide, and ethnic cleansing.

Numbers have very little to do with either of those definitions, and I'm of the opinion that being "slaughtered in the streets" falls under the same category in which factors other than raw numbers or proportionality matter.

I said maybe average those. Like I stated before, I'd have to do more research before I could properly quantify it. Maybe the Russian pogroms against Jews would be a better judge of it?

I don't think numbers matter when assessing this. I think it's all about societal attitudes towards such crimes and reactions.

[The East Marches]

So there isn't an academic standard it can meet and your response about you not knowing whether it could meet it was just hot air.

Thats why I was trying to enlist other more knowledgeable posters who could help me in my endeavor.

There should be a standard. Just like there's a standard for genocide, and ethnic cleansing.

Numbers have very little to do with either of those definitions, and I'm of the opinion that being "slaughtered in the streets" falls under the same category in which factors other than raw numbers or proportionality matter

Then how we do define what counts as being "slaughtered in the street"? The UN, ICC, even Numremburg used some form of statistics to justify their stances on what the population percentage decline in a specific region was. Why not try a murder rate per hundred thousand? I think that is objectively a fair standard that could be easily quantified and verified.

I don't think numbers matter when assessing this. I think it's all about societal attitudes towards such crimes and reactions.

If number don't matter, should we just use our emotions or gut instinct? That doesn't make sense. Then you'd be able to make the argument that almost any group is being "slaughtered in the streets".

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

"If only they'd killed one more... then retaliation would be justified..."

Honestly, my favorite part of people denying violence even happens is that they imply support for retaliation, but only if enough people are killed. And their true opinions show when, with every other murder, they say "one more, one more..."

[The East Marches]

Well, the UN and ICC do I believe. If you are going to accuse somebody of a crime, you better have a standard that has to be met.

I'm looking at the numbers right now and starting to seriously doubt the Nazis hit the quota for a First Class Genocide. We might have to demote them to just an Honors Genocide.

Nobody said Uncle Adolfo was particularly talented at organization. Looks like he'll have to study harder if he want to be as good as Mao. Better luck next time Adolf.

[Vashty]

You don't need to change history to have an opinion on it. You can see things in another light, that's called an opinion on something that isn't completely objective. For example, no-one really knows who in the Bolshevik Party of 1917 had the best moustache, but say it was agreed only a few years by the majority of Western academic historians that Lenin's beard was the best, that would be the consensus view. But what if someone says Trotsky's beard was the best? Are you going to shut down the conversation because you disagree with them? Just because it's revisionary?

That is an example of opinion, you are not trying to change history or cast it in a some sort of preferential light. Saying that the CSA is entirely conservative is an example of ideological revisionism because it is both incorrect and has been done so to fit an ideological aim.

Saying they are right-of-centre however, is entirely truthful.

[Conserative Morality]

Then how we do define what counts as being "slaughtered in the street"? The UN, ICC, even Numremburg used some form of statistics to justify their stances on what the population percentage decline in a specific region was. Why not try a murder rate per hundred thousand? I think that is objectively a fair standard that could be easily quantified and verified.

Article 1

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I'm not seeing the percentage requirement in the UN's definition of genocide.

If number don't matter, should we just use our emotions or gut instinct? That doesn't make sense. Then you'd be able to make the argument that almost any group is being "slaughtered in the streets".

You would be able to. Wouldn't necessarily make the argument compelling. Just like, you know, every issue regarding values rather than value.

[Vashty]

Wow. Cmon guys, NS doesn't need fucking peer review.

Well... previously threads have indicated to me that some NSers, especially our friends on the left, will only take academically peer reviewed papers/journals. I was merely trying to meet their high standard of evidence. You can hardly blame a man for trying to please.

On a practical level though, how the fuck would you academically evaluate half the shit of Forum 7?

[The Two Jerseys]

"If only they'd killed one more... then retaliation would be justified..."

Honestly, my favorite part of people denying violence even happens is that they imply support for retaliation, but only if enough people are killed. And their true opinions show when, with every other murder, they say "one more, one more..."

So since more black people are killed by other black people than by anyone else and the black community does jack shit about it, then by your logic we don't have to worry about black people retaliating against the cops because they'll never reach that "one more" number.

It's safe to return home, everyone, the revolution is canceled!

[The East Marches]

Then how we do define what counts as being "slaughtered in the street"? The UN, ICC, even Numremburg used some form of statistics to justify their stances on what the population percentage decline in a specific region was. Why not try a murder rate per hundred thousand? I think that is objectively a fair standard that could be easily quantified and verified.

Article 1

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I'm not seeing the percentage requirement in the UN's definition of genocide.

Sure, sure. But don't you have to show that there was or occurred a physical destruction? I could have swore they used percentages for the Yugoslav warcrimes trial to illustrate that the populations were devastated. I could say that "Christians are being massacred" and claim it meets that standard. I could drum up evidence of dead Christians but how would you measure whether a genocide actually occurred?

You would be able to. Wouldn't necessarily make the argument compelling. Just like, you know, every issue regarding values rather than value.

I'm a bit tired tonight, perhaps you could explain what you mean by "values versus value"? I took it to mean the feelings versus statistics or morality rather than money way. I want to get this correct.

[Wallenburg]

"If only they'd killed one more... then retaliation would be justified..."

Honestly, my favorite part of people denying violence even happens is that they imply support for retaliation, but only if enough people are killed. And their true opinions show when, with every other murder, they say "one more, one more..."

So since more black people are killed by other black people than by anyone else and the black community does jack shit about it, then by your logic we don't have to worry about black people retaliating against the cops because they'll never reach that "one more" number.

It's safe to return home, everyone, the revolution is canceled!

That doesn't follow at all.