5 ms·

Then I see nothing wrong with genocide per sē if (d) fall under it, for by this definition, the Dutch goverment's plan to hand out free condoms to teenagers is

Then I see nothing wrong with genocide per sē if (d) fall under it, for by this definition, the Dutch goverment's plan to hand out free condoms to teenagers is a form of genocide, as it is a measure intended to stop births within the group of Dutchmen. As usual, U.N. definitions are made without much thought, and quickly lead to the absurd when being held to even the slightest of inspection — it is almost as if it be a forum of very emotional men, who put very little thought into what they are doing. If we say that stopping future births rather is problematic, then most forms of sex education are problematic.

tsimionescu 6y ago
> the Dutch goverment's plan to hand out free condoms to teenagers is a form of genocide, as it is a measure intended to stop births within the group of Dutchmen. That would be perhaps true if the Dutch government were planning to give out free condoms only to white people or only to black people or only to blonds or only to christians etc. If they are universally giving out condoms, then they are obviously not trying to destroy any particular ethnic or national group inside their own country - the obvious limit to the UN definition.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Say a proof of citizenship be required. Then they are only giving them out to the “ethnicity” called “the Dutchman”. But this another matter of why I'm never very impressed with any definition that names the pseudoscientific concept of “ethnicity” — it is of course entirely an arbitrary thing what is and isn't classified as a separate “ethnicity” much like how the difference between a dialect and a separate language is of course one of politics, not science. If only the province of Frisia were to have a plan for handing out such condoms, would that qualify as genocide of the Frisians then, which some claim is a different ethnicity for historical reasons? Are the inhabitants of each city perhaps a different ethnicity?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    You continue to conflate "handing out condoms" with forced sterilization. The two are not the same thing. If you permanently and compulsorily sterilized everyone in Frisia, yes, that'd be a genocide. Giving them condoms they can voluntarily and reversibly use is not.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      In some extreme cases, it may turn out that a country is attempting to reduce a particular population by providing what appears as benefits. Probably free condoms are far too voluntary and ineffectual to come even close, but still - if anyone attempted it with the distinct intent of reducing some specific population, it could be somewhere in the neighborhood of ethnic cleansing.
      - xxpor 6y ago
        I'd say there's a clear distinction with condoms around reversibility. You have to affirmatively choose to use a condom every time you have sex. If the government were giving out free vasectomies or tubal ligations to certain ethnic groups and not others, that would be a wildly different story.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      No, I don't conflate the two at all. I'm simply saying that by the U.N.'s definition of “genocide”, handing out condoms can be construed as such, and that the definition is therefore not worth much, or rather, that following it's definition, genocide is not problematic per sē, as it does not necessarily involve the involuntary taking of human life.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        Only if "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Free condom initiatives typically do not have that intent.
  - 6y ago

tsimionescu 6y ago

> the Dutch goverment's plan to hand out free condoms to teenagers is a form of genocide, as it is a measure intended to stop births within the group of Dutchmen. That would be perhaps true if the Dutch government were planning to give out free condoms only to white people or only to black people or only to blonds or only to christians etc. If they are universally giving out condoms, then they are obviously not trying to destroy any particular ethnic or national group inside their own country - the obvious limit to the UN definition.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Say a proof of citizenship be required. Then they are only giving them out to the “ethnicity” called “the Dutchman”. But this another matter of why I'm never very impressed with any definition that names the pseudoscientific concept of “ethnicity” — it is of course entirely an arbitrary thing what is and isn't classified as a separate “ethnicity” much like how the difference between a dialect and a separate language is of course one of politics, not science. If only the province of Frisia were to have a plan for handing out such condoms, would that qualify as genocide of the Frisians then, which some claim is a different ethnicity for historical reasons? Are the inhabitants of each city perhaps a different ethnicity?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  You continue to conflate "handing out condoms" with forced sterilization. The two are not the same thing. If you permanently and compulsorily sterilized everyone in Frisia, yes, that'd be a genocide. Giving them condoms they can voluntarily and reversibly use is not.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    In some extreme cases, it may turn out that a country is attempting to reduce a particular population by providing what appears as benefits. Probably free condoms are far too voluntary and ineffectual to come even close, but still - if anyone attempted it with the distinct intent of reducing some specific population, it could be somewhere in the neighborhood of ethnic cleansing.
    - xxpor 6y ago
      I'd say there's a clear distinction with condoms around reversibility. You have to affirmatively choose to use a condom every time you have sex. If the government were giving out free vasectomies or tubal ligations to certain ethnic groups and not others, that would be a wildly different story.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    No, I don't conflate the two at all. I'm simply saying that by the U.N.'s definition of “genocide”, handing out condoms can be construed as such, and that the definition is therefore not worth much, or rather, that following it's definition, genocide is not problematic per sē, as it does not necessarily involve the involuntary taking of human life.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Only if "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Free condom initiatives typically do not have that intent.
- 6y ago