4 ms·

You read "genocide" too narrowly, and write "homicide" too broadly. To annihilate a city and its people is genocide in my book.

ColinWright 14y ago
That's Humpty Dumpty thinking. You can interpret the words however you like, but effective communication requires some sort of agreement about definitions. For most people, and in dictionaries, "genocide" specifically does not mean "lots of people", no matter how you personally choose to interpret it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide : "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007043 http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007043 : It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. By all means interpret it differently, just don't expect to communicate effectively. (And yes, I know that "decimate" used to mean "kill one in ten" and now people use it to mean "kill nearly everyone". I know language changes, but "genocide" is still rather specific, and has not, to my knowledge, broadly changed in the way you intimate.)
- lukeschlather 14y ago
  I'd say a destroying a city definitely meets that definition. Deliberately destroying part of a national group. Also, the inhabitants of a city are definitely an ethnicity (though that depends on how restrictive a definition of ethnicity you use.) So, sure, you kill a lot of people it's not genocide, but you systematically eradicate a city, I'd call it genocide.
  - ColinWright 14y ago
    The inhabitants of a city are not limited to a single ethnicity, so it's still fundamentally wrong. However, this exchange won't get us any further. I have no doubt you won't be convinced, so there seems nothing to be gained by continuing. Feel free to use language as you will.
    - lukeschlather 14y ago
      As I said, it depends on how restrictive a definition of ethnicity you use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic > pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like. The inhabitants of a city usually share a common and distinctive culture (and the like.) You're using extremely narrow definitions of genocide as well as ethnicity. Both are vague terms.
      - ColinWright 14y ago
        > As I said, it depends on how restrictive > a definition of ethnicity you use. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less." You appear to be choosing definitions that don't match those in dictionaries, but I'm sure they're perfectly cromulent.

ColinWright 14y ago

That's Humpty Dumpty thinking. You can interpret the words however you like, but effective communication requires some sort of agreement about definitions. For most people, and in dictionaries, "genocide" specifically does not mean "lots of people", no matter how you personally choose to interpret it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide : "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007043 http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007043 : It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. By all means interpret it differently, just don't expect to communicate effectively. (And yes, I know that "decimate" used to mean "kill one in ten" and now people use it to mean "kill nearly everyone". I know language changes, but "genocide" is still rather specific, and has not, to my knowledge, broadly changed in the way you intimate.)

lukeschlather 14y ago
I'd say a destroying a city definitely meets that definition. Deliberately destroying part of a national group. Also, the inhabitants of a city are definitely an ethnicity (though that depends on how restrictive a definition of ethnicity you use.) So, sure, you kill a lot of people it's not genocide, but you systematically eradicate a city, I'd call it genocide.
- ColinWright 14y ago
  The inhabitants of a city are not limited to a single ethnicity, so it's still fundamentally wrong. However, this exchange won't get us any further. I have no doubt you won't be convinced, so there seems nothing to be gained by continuing. Feel free to use language as you will.
  - lukeschlather 14y ago
    As I said, it depends on how restrictive a definition of ethnicity you use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic > pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like. The inhabitants of a city usually share a common and distinctive culture (and the like.) You're using extremely narrow definitions of genocide as well as ethnicity. Both are vague terms.
    - ColinWright 14y ago
      > As I said, it depends on how restrictive > a definition of ethnicity you use. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less." You appear to be choosing definitions that don't match those in dictionaries, but I'm sure they're perfectly cromulent.