3 ms·
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 a
by 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 agoThe 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 agoAs 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.