• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does defense justify genocide?

Does defense justify genocide?

  • No.

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • No.

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • No.

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • No.

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • Total voters
    11

Troubadour

Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
464
Reaction score
181
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There is another poll up right now asking if "defense" justifies torture, and the absurdity of even asking the question has led me to ask an equally ridiculous, alternate-universe poll question: Does "defense" justify genocide? How about burning people at the stake? Surely if Jack Bauer had to, let's say, dismember and cannibalize some children on live TV in order to save America from a terrorist plot, that would be justifiable?

The fact that anyone even considers it acceptable to treat the matter of torture as morally ambiguous is reprehensible - it is not ambiguous. Questioning something does not make it questionable; debating it does not make it debatable; arguing over it does not make it controversial. There is no ambiguity here.

Torture is illegal. It is a crime. It is evil. There are no real-world circumstances under which it is justified. Everyone who condones it is un-American at best. Everyone who in any way facilitates it or tolerates it when they are in a position to stop it deserves long prison sentences. Anyone who directly commits it (as George W. Bush has admitted to doing) deserves to spend the rest of their lives in a maximum-security prison, and if their crimes resulted in any deaths (as it appears occurred in Bush's case), that constitutes first-degree murder with capital special circumstances.

This is not a game. This is not a TV show. This is America in the 21st century, and anyone who looks with nostalgia on the Spanish Inquisition can kindly leave my country.
 
And so Bush is the only one who's ever crossed the line?
As far as I'm aware everyone IN CONGRESS crossed the line when they knew what was going on and they permitted it to happen, anyway.

In order for it to be considered unconstitutional - it first must be declared as 'torture' by the Supreme Court. You can't just decide that "this is torture . . . that is not" because *you* feel that way. In order to punish someone there must be a defined law which is broken or a regulation which is determined to be violated.

Bush wasn't some Monarch gone crazy like Vlad the Impaler. He wasn't the only say-so in this decision. Many had the knowledge and power to speak out against him or to try to stop his decisions from going through - and some did try - but many did not and no one actually took necessary steps to stop him.

So instead of pointing fingers and crying for his blood perhaps you should actually hold EVERYONE accountable who is at fault for the wrongdoing. He is but one figure in the entire picture.
And he's not the only president to ever cross the line with the support of Congress.
 
Actually, I would argue that theoretically, genocide would be justifiable in defense of oneself or one's country under certain circumstances. If you were fighting an enemy who refused to surrender, and would continue to be a threat as long as any of them were alive, then genocide would be the only option. This is unlikely to come up in real life though.
 
Actually, I would argue that theoretically, genocide would be justifiable in defense of oneself or one's country under certain circumstances. If you were fighting an enemy who refused to surrender, and would continue to be a threat as long as any of them were alive, then genocide would be the only option. This is unlikely to come up in real life though.

that threat would have to be significant though, and direct. Meaning your country was being invaded, your people being killed, and you had one last choice to prevent your own genocide, the launch of an all out assault to destroy the other

If you invaded a country, currently dominate that country but the people are putting up resistance, genocide would be immoral and should result in the invading country being wiped out by the rest of the world
 
that threat would have to be significant though, and direct. Meaning your country was being invaded, your people being killed, and you had one last choice to prevent your own genocide, the launch of an all out assault to destroy the other

If you invaded a country, currently dominate that country but the people are putting up resistance, genocide would be immoral and should result in the invading country being wiped out by the rest of the world

I agree with this. For genocide to be an option, it would have to be the only option available besides simply giving up and being wiped out/conquered yourself.
 
There is another poll up right now asking if "defense" justifies torture, and the absurdity of even asking the question has led me to ask an equally ridiculous, alternate-universe poll question: Does "defense" justify genocide? How about burning people at the stake? Surely if Jack Bauer had to, let's say, dismember and cannibalize some children on live TV in order to save America from a terrorist plot, that would be justifiable?

The fact that anyone even considers it acceptable to treat the matter of torture as morally ambiguous is reprehensible - it is not ambiguous. Questioning something does not make it questionable; debating it does not make it debatable; arguing over it does not make it controversial. There is no ambiguity here.

Torture is illegal. It is a crime. It is evil. There are no real-world circumstances under which it is justified. Everyone who condones it is un-American at best. Everyone who in any way facilitates it or tolerates it when they are in a position to stop it deserves long prison sentences. Anyone who directly commits it (as George W. Bush has admitted to doing) deserves to spend the rest of their lives in a maximum-security prison, and if their crimes resulted in any deaths (as it appears occurred in Bush's case), that constitutes first-degree murder with capital special circumstances.

This is not a game. This is not a TV show. This is America in the 21st century, and anyone who looks with nostalgia on the Spanish Inquisition can kindly leave my country.

You sure are naive about the world, warfare and have no comprehension about what constitutes a crime or even first degree murder. I bet you probably think we should apologize to the Japanese for dropping atomic bombs on them and for putting the lives and safety of our troops ahead of the civilians in Japan.
 
And so Bush is the only one who's ever crossed the line?
As far as I'm aware everyone IN CONGRESS crossed the line when they knew what was going on and they permitted it to happen, anyway.

In order for it to be considered unconstitutional - it first must be declared as 'torture' by the Supreme Court. You can't just decide that "this is torture . . . that is not" because *you* feel that way. In order to punish someone there must be a defined law which is broken or a regulation which is determined to be violated.

Bush wasn't some Monarch gone crazy like Vlad the Impaler. He wasn't the only say-so in this decision. Many had the knowledge and power to speak out against him or to try to stop his decisions from going through - and some did try - but many did not and no one actually took necessary steps to stop him.

So instead of pointing fingers and crying for his blood perhaps you should actually hold EVERYONE accountable who is at fault for the wrongdoing. He is but one figure in the entire picture.
And he's not the only president to ever cross the line with the support of Congress.

Didn't know that George W. Hitler Bush Satan is a e-vile war mongering dictator who stole the elections from the kindly saint Al Jesus Gore and saint John Moses Kerry, ruled the US with a iron fist, the senators and congressmen were just puppets and the e-vile George W. Hitler Bush Satan just wanted the oil in Iraq and Afghanistan all to himself?(sarcasm)
 
Last edited:
Didn't know that George W. Hitler Bush Satan is a e-vile war mongering dictator who stole the elections from the kindly saint Al Jesus Gore and saint John Moses Kerry, ruled the US with a iron fist, the senators and congressmen were just puppets and the e-vile George W. Hitler Bush Satan just wanted the oil in Iraq and Afghanistan all to himself?(sarcasm)

In many ways leaders have been charged and tried for war-crimes. There is a process and a method. If any of our leaders are considered to have committed a war crime then I would expect everyone to follow the set precedent - stick to procedure - and go about doing it the right way.

Seeing as how those gears aren't in motion and that ball is not rolling *obviously* things aren't going that way.

My issue lays with the fact that many people have issues with what happened - and tend to *only* blame Bush as if he's some lone ghost in the mist wreaking havoc on the world.
 
The fact that anyone even considers it acceptable to treat the matter of torture as morally ambiguous is reprehensible - it is not ambiguous. Questioning something does not make it questionable; debating it does not make it debatable; arguing over it does not make it controversial. There is no ambiguity here.

Torture is illegal. It is a crime. It is evil. There are no real-world circumstances under which it is justified.

Oh, well if some random internet dude says so, it MUST be true! After all, the world obviously operates in black and white.

:roll:

Fun fact: At least 70% of people say that torture is justified in some circumstances:

569-69.gif


U.S. Seen as Less Important, China as More Powerful: Section 7: Threat of Terrorism and Civil Liberties - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

If this were expanded beyond "suspected terrorists," I think the numbers would be even greater.
 
Last edited:
Biased, poll is biased (not to mention rigged) :mrgreen:

But seriously...

Only in highly unlikely circumstances.

----------
Imagine a society of entities whose individual members possess high levels of strength, speed, etc., making them individually capable of killing/wounding multiple people if they so desire, without the aid of any weaponry.

No known methods can keep them imprisoned.

They ascribe to a belief system that does not allow surrender under any circumstances.

They are aggressive to a fault, always choosing to attack, no matter the odds.

They are asexual, and reproduce at a prodigious rate, such that a few (or one) individual(s) could become a threatening force inside a month or two.

As a side note, human bodies are an optimum source of food for them.

They are perfectly willing to use any form of weaponry they can make and/or acquire, up to and including any massively destructive weapons you can imagine.

And other aspects along those lines.
-----------
The above is more likely in a fictional movie/book than in real life, and I can’t see humans (at least humans as they are currently) fitting the bill…

But it’s still possible that such a situation would arise – and committing genocide would be the only survivable option.
 
I voted yes...
.

.

.

There is another poll up right now asking if "defense" justifies torture, and the absurdity of even asking the question has led me to ask an equally ridiculous, alternate-universe poll question: Does "defense" justify genocide?

If there was an enemy that was committed to fighting to the death and to the last person, then yes. Seems obvious. Why would I stop fighting and killing my enemy only to let them kill me? It is ridiculous to think otherwise...

How about burning people at the stake?

Killing them is sufficient enough without getting hysterical, calm down...

Surely if Jack Bauer had to, let's say, dismember and cannibalize some children on live TV in order to save America from a terrorist plot, that would be justifiable?

Come back... reality is on this side of the line.

The fact that anyone even considers it acceptable to treat the matter of torture as morally ambiguous is reprehensible - it is not ambiguous.

I guess those of us that consider it will be alive and you wont. I won't spend too much time thinking about you and your refusal to survive though...

Questioning something does not make it questionable; debating it does not make it debatable;

Am I the only one confused here?

arguing over it does not make it controversial. There is no ambiguity here.

If you say so...

Torture is illegal. It is a crime.

Only because we passed laws making it so, all we have to do is change those laws and it would no longer be illegal...

It is evil.

Unless you are torturing an evil person that wants to kill you and your innocent loved ones for no reason other than hatred, so that you can get information that will help you stop others of like mind.

There are no real-world circumstances under which it is justified.

Oh please....

Everyone who condones it is un-American at best.

Dang, you're harsh...

Everyone who in any way facilitates it or tolerates it when they are in a position to stop it deserves long prison sentences. Anyone who directly commits it (as George W. Bush has admitted to doing) deserves to spend the rest of their lives in a maximum-security prison, and if their crimes resulted in any deaths (as it appears occurred in Bush's case), that constitutes first-degree murder with capital special circumstances.

Every person in America is in the position to stop it... through the power of voting. So, in essence, you are condemning tens of millions of people to first-degree murder with capital special circumstances. Pretty silly...

This is not a game. This is not a TV show. This is America in the 21st century,

No, this is the Internet and why don't you go spend some time with the Taliban and see if that changes your perspective at all...

and anyone who looks with nostalgia on the Spanish Inquisition can kindly leave my country.

Ahhh... those were the days. I remember the look on that one ladies face as she was just starting to burn at the stake... pure comedy.
 
Last edited:
These are absolutely dumb questions. Winning justifies anything. History is quite clear that anything is forgiven if you win. How quickly did the entire Pacific and the U.S. cheer when Japan surrendered unconditionally? How easy was it for Germans to dismiss their own history of treatment towards people as long as all of Europe was under the Swastika? With Al-Queda an organizational wreck, how many people actually care about the three terrorists that were waterboarded?


Philosophy is for the classroom.
 
Last edited:
If one takes the time to understand what genocide really is defined as a better answer to the question becomes possible.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

In the case of a religious group like the Radical Cult of Islam, genocide is not just justified it's the only solution.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of those who believe in Islam are not radicals and very very few women are in favor of of the subjugation that comes with it.

I would say that if exposed to the openness and equality afforded to women in Western Society they would chose the West.

So the answer to the central question, is yes, Defense not only Justifies it, it demands it if we are going to survive as a people and a Nation, because the only way to win against this Cult requires the total annihilation of every Member of the Cult, because if one member remains the threat also remains.

You need to know where to start.
Grand_Ayatollah_Ali_Khamenei.jpg
 
If one takes the time to understand what genocide really is defined as a better answer to the question becomes possible.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

In the case of a religious group like the Radical Cult of Islam, genocide is not just justified it's the only solution.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of those who believe in Islam are not radicals and very very few women are in favor of of the subjugation that comes with it.

I would say that if exposed to the openness and equality afforded to women in Western Society they would chose the West.

So the answer to the central question, is yes, Defense not only Justifies it, it demands it if we are going to survive as a people and a Nation, because the only way to win against this Cult requires the total annihilation of every Member of the Cult, because if one member remains the threat also remains.

You need to know where to start.
Grand_Ayatollah_Ali_Khamenei.jpg
Slightly disturbing (and highly random) thought - put him in a santa suit, and he could easily pass for the guy... :mrgreen:
 
Actually, I would argue that theoretically, genocide would be justifiable in defense of oneself or one's country under certain circumstances. If you were fighting an enemy who refused to surrender, and would continue to be a threat as long as any of them were alive, then genocide would be the only option. This is unlikely to come up in real life though.

I was thinking something far more grand. Like an enemy capable of rapid production/spawn/replication that can only be stopped by total elimination.
 
like the Replicators from Stargate.




as to the original question; defense can justify genocide. consider, for example, the possible scenario where the last member of a dying tribe/ethnicty/whathaveyou attacks my family and threatens to rape my wife and burn my family alive; am I expected not to defend my family out of respect for the fact that this clown is a particular ethnicity?

ah, but by killing him i am wiping that group out: i am committing genocide.

hmmm :thinking


nope, don't care. he's dead.
 
The inability of fellow liberals to do moral calculus is disappointing.
 
Genocide does not equate with harsh interrogation and torture. Torture is justified for defensive purposes. This poll is illogical.
 
Genocide = targetting race or ethnicity, for the purpose of eliminating it.

Race or ethnicity do not threaten anything.
 
Last edited:
Slightly disturbing (and highly random) thought - put him in a santa suit, and he could easily pass for the guy... :mrgreen:

Body scanners for all Santas!! :mrgreen:
 
Yes
Maybe I am still a Goldwater conservative, but, fool with me and my people and the consequences will be horrible...
Its in man's history.
The American natives took quite the hit, as have other people.
Genocide, of course is not right, but...................
 
And so Bush is the only one who's ever crossed the line?
As far as I'm aware everyone IN CONGRESS crossed the line when they knew what was going on and they permitted it to happen, anyway.

In order for it to be considered unconstitutional - it first must be declared as 'torture' by the Supreme Court. You can't just decide that "this is torture . . . that is not" because *you* feel that way. In order to punish someone there must be a defined law which is broken or a regulation which is determined to be violated.

Bush wasn't some Monarch gone crazy like Vlad the Impaler. He wasn't the only say-so in this decision. Many had the knowledge and power to speak out against him or to try to stop his decisions from going through - and some did try - but many did not and no one actually took necessary steps to stop him.

So instead of pointing fingers and crying for his blood perhaps you should actually hold EVERYONE accountable who is at fault for the wrongdoing. He is but one figure in the entire picture.
And he's not the only president to ever cross the line with the support of Congress.[/QUOTE
Supposedly Bush was the leader, and should set the example.
He failed.
 
There is another poll up right now asking if "defense" justifies torture, and the absurdity of even asking the question has led me to ask an equally ridiculous, alternate-universe poll question: Does "defense" justify genocide? How about burning people at the stake? Surely if Jack Bauer had to, let's say, dismember and cannibalize some children on live TV in order to save America from a terrorist plot, that would be justifiable?

The fact that anyone even considers it acceptable to treat the matter of torture as morally ambiguous is reprehensible - it is not ambiguous. Questioning something does not make it questionable; debating it does not make it debatable; arguing over it does not make it controversial. There is no ambiguity here.

Torture is illegal. It is a crime. It is evil. There are no real-world circumstances under which it is justified. Everyone who condones it is un-American at best. Everyone who in any way facilitates it or tolerates it when they are in a position to stop it deserves long prison sentences. Anyone who directly commits it (as George W. Bush has admitted to doing) deserves to spend the rest of their lives in a maximum-security prison, and if their crimes resulted in any deaths (as it appears occurred in Bush's case), that constitutes first-degree murder with capital special circumstances.

This is not a game. This is not a TV show. This is America in the 21st century, and anyone who looks with nostalgia on the Spanish Inquisition can kindly leave my country.

I would like to see a poll that asks if people understand the definitions of genocide and torture. The closest thing we've seen to genocide on this side of the ocean is the unproportionate abortion rate among blacks and the advertising and consulting provided by Planned Parenthood that causes it.

The closest thing we've seen to torture is Al Qaeda cutting people's limbs and heads off, not America pouring water on three people's heads. Torture is never justified in defense. Pouring water on someone's face is no more torture than making them stand in once place for 4 hours (at my old job I stood in one place for 10), or making them listen to uncomfortable noises or think their life is in danger. We can't by law do any of that to POWs, however, terrorists in civilian clothing caught in the middle of terrorist acts are not civilians, nor are they soldiers according to US law or the Geneva Conventions. Legally, we can do whatever want. But because we are a civilized society, we draw the line at pouring water on the faces of the most evil of terrorists who have killed thousands of American civilians. I'm ok with that.
 
To the OP - is there any particular reason your poll only has one answer.
 
To the OP - is there any particular reason your poll only has one answer.
Obviously, because he's right about this and knows it - this poll is so we can agree with him.

...

......

.........

............:mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom