Made me think of this tbh.
Armenian Genocide (?)
- Thread starter Janissary1453
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
1. Because they are Humans
2. Ideally, one would prevent a genocide before it happens tho.
Nega-Brutus
@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?
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?
Last edited:
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.
In this case it was merely just that nobody really cares about Turkey anymore and they haven't contributed significant funds to the school or any scholars from the department in a long time. If there was money on the line it might be an entirely different story, tragic as that is.
I don't doubt it. To me the fact that there was no doubt on the fact that it was a real thing only makes things worse. Academia should not be willing to bend or hide the truth because someone with money wants them to. I realize I am being idealistic and I suspect that I am much younger than you at least career wise (I will start my tenure track next year). I will probably have to learn to deal with this kind of political shenanigans. I am glad that in the end y'all did the right thing.
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.
2. I suppose. Seems unlikely to send help without being aware or acknowledging it offcially that it is a genocide.
Nega-Brutus
@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?
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?
Last edited:
Okay, all points make sense.
And I agree with the 3)rd point too.
Nega-Brutus
?
@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?
@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?
If a genocide has happened, then yes, Turkey should acknowledge the Armenian genocide.
Nega-Brutus
Meh, I'll take it.
It's a futile exercise in discourse anyway.Nega-Brutus
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.
@Nega-Brutus
But on both there's the condition that the genocide must've happened. Even most opponents of the concept of armenian genocide agree that denying the existence of a real genocide is bad. For example they will often call out supposed western hypocrisy for not acknowledging the khojaly massacre as a genocide, which is a very popular notion in Turkey. It's something which Princess also agrees to, so their response was predictable; they themselves think the world is cruel for denying the supposed genocide that allegedly occurred during the Nagornao-Karabag war. You accomplished nothing while Princess pretty much made you give up. She's going away from this exchange with no concession at all. You only think you changed their mind. They even warned you they wouldn't be convinced by telling you they knew where this discussion was going to go. Basically, they wasted your time.
The truth about debates is that they're not very simple. I do think people should assume good faith of their opponents and try to maintain a dialogue for the duration of the debate if possible. But for some people, you'll find yourself in a situation which demands that you adapt what you say to the thickness of the wax in their ears.
But on both there's the condition that the genocide must've happened. Even most opponents of the concept of armenian genocide agree that denying the existence of a real genocide is bad. For example they will often call out supposed western hypocrisy for not acknowledging the khojaly massacre as a genocide, which is a very popular notion in Turkey. It's something which Princess also agrees to, so their response was predictable; they themselves think the world is cruel for denying the supposed genocide that allegedly occurred during the Nagornao-Karabag war. You accomplished nothing while Princess pretty much made you give up. She's going away from this exchange with no concession at all. You only think you changed their mind. They even warned you they wouldn't be convinced by telling you they knew where this discussion was going to go. Basically, they wasted your time.
The truth about debates is that they're not very simple. I do think people should assume good faith of their opponents and try to maintain a dialogue for the duration of the debate if possible. But for some people, you'll find yourself in a situation which demands that you adapt what you say to the thickness of the wax in their ears.
Harmless 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.
Nega-Brutus
@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>
Last edited by a moderator:
That is the way to do it imo, as difficult as it might be (and it really is). Also, ?????
Last edited by a moderator:
Nega-Brutus
Similar threads
- Poll
