Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (774249)	3/11/2014 3:20:42 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 1573096

>>>"There is no standard of scale, no standard of systematic conspiracy in the "international legal" definition you provided. Only the dictionary definition includes the standard of scale, but you did not provide that dictionary definition until now." (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 see the elements (a-e) as a comprehensive definition, not as elements which could be applied on their own, because these elements are typically all present in circumstances labeled Genocide. I also see part (c) to be all that is needed to establish scale, and the assumption seems to be, the efforts could not be performed by an individual human being but would require an organized conspiracy. If you were to separate the elements you would not have a valid definition. Pulling out part (a) out, for example, would result in a definition of hate crime. I am not particularly bound to this definition, it was just a way to focus the discussion since the word was being thrown back and forth without much agreement on what it meant. It became a stickler, probably because it seems complicated, which is why I asked you to forward a definition that would realistically serve as a standard. I like the definition you provided just fine, including the notes you added as qualifiers. So, if you want to refocus around that definition, I am willing.