Made me think of this tbh.
1. Because they are Humans@Princess Mikoto
1) Hm, my question was not how much it matters to you. My question was why it matters to you, right?
2) Before 'measures' are taken, it has to be, by necessity, acknowledged as genocide first, no?
As someone who also works in academia (although not in history) I find the fact that that was even in question extremely cringe worthy ?
I would be interested in hearing more, if you do not mind, about what you might think about it all and if you would be willing to share what convinced them not to cater to said people. It might be beneficial here, too.
It's more common than you would think to bow to political concerns when you rely on a combination of public funds and large sums from special-interest donors and international students. Take this recent story, for instance. Again, I'll point out that there was no debate as to the actual veracity of the genocide, just on whether or not it would be wise to acquiesce and avoid covering it in a course that was only tangentially related to it.
1. One should not harm fellow humans not discriminated based on their ethnicity, gender and other trivial things, as long as it is not in self-defense.@Princess Mikoto
1) Can you elaborate? They're humans and...? Why does it matter? Try to formulate a statement, please. [The statement could simply be: ''One ought not to genocide humans, in my view''.]
2) Ok... Before you can take the necessary measures to prevent a genocide from happening, genocide as a prospect, by necessity, has to be acknowledged, no?
Okay, all points make sense.@Princess Mikoto
Switching the points up so it follows a bit more clearly. Change things around if you disagree.
1) Genocides have to be acknowledged by necessity before they can be prevented. Therefore, genocide denial is obstructive to the prevention of genocides.
2)
a. You shouldn't harm others.
b. You can harm others, however, in self-defense...
...on the condition #i that the defensive harm is the only avenue to defend yourself.
...on the condition #ii that the defensive harm is not applied in a discriminatory fashion.
(I would also add)
...on the conditions #iii that the defensive harm is proportionate. (EG putting a knife through someone just because they said your sweater is ugly would not be a proportionate defense.)
3) Moral understandings take precedence over legal understandings. Would you agree with that?
If a genocide has happened, then yes, Turkey should acknowledge the Armenian genocide.?
@Princess Mikoto
Just to make we're on the same page, then.
1) You believe genocide denial is bad
2) You believe genocides are indefensible.
3) You believe that a state should accord to moral understandings.
Given these positions, you agree that Turkey should acknowledge the Armenian genocide, no?
It's a futile exercise in discourse anyway.Meh, I'll take it.
I'd disagree. Two positions he espoused earlier (genocide denial is not harmful + why should Turkey acknowledge if it's not in their self-interests) have been revised. I say that not jerk myself off but because it's important to acknowledge that dialogue is worth it and that progress is made when it's made. But you can't have it all your way all the time.It's a futile exercise in discourse anyway.
Harmless concessions as they would never acknowledge it happened, no matter what evidence is presented.I'd disagree. Two positions he espoused earlier (genocide denial is not harmful + why should Turkey acknowledge if it's not in their self-interests) have been revised. I say that not jerk myself off but because it's important to acknowledge that dialogue is worth it and that progress is made when it's made. But you can't have it all your way all the time.
@Zombie WarriorHarmless concessions as they would never acknowledge it happened, no matter what evidence is presented.
It's like saying I can be reasonable if people are not assholes to me and then murder people daily no matter what they do.
That is the way to do it imo, as difficult as it might be (and it really is). Also, ?????@Zombie Warrior
That's great. Anecdotally, I personally live with a racist, homophobic, nationalistic, abusive person who has revised a lot of opinions and taken a more sober attitude on issues because of exposure to dialogue. In my view, if you care about making an impact, consider that real people need encouragement and positive reinforcement when they demonstrate agreeability, and disapproval (in proportion) when they err -- over a prolonged period of time.
You or princess can get away thinking they outsmarted and deceived me here, I don't care. I like doing logical exercises with people and extending mutual understandings because it's how I personally see people change in a more positive fashion, and it's how I can have these conversations without going all out guns blazing (although that too has a time and place and can also be effective imo). I can let the hate flow and try to arrogantly and narcissisticly pick a person apart and leave everyone feeling bad. But my brain can't handle and doesn't care about that stress. I'm personally also an actor in this exchange who should be considered as to my desires and limitations. You shouldn't just look at what is the most effective or ineffective in producing the outcome of that someone concedes a statement. It's not that simple of an equation.
To summarize 1. It takes time 2. Consider both parties.
Also @MadVader GET DUNKED <WHAT DOES IT FEEL LIKE I KINDA WANNA FIND OUT MYSELF>