Genocide

2007-12-11T19:52:18Z

RamenNoodle: Undo revision 350555 by Special:Contributions/Aschlafly (User talk:Aschlafly)

'''Genocide''' involves the calculated targeting and killing of a specific ethnic group, or any huge deliberate killing of civilians carried out as a consequence of government policy. The word "genocide" was coined by Rafael Lemkin in his 1944 book ''Axis Rule in Occupied Europe'' to describe the mass killings of European Jews by the Nazi regime. (See Samantha Power, ''A Problem From Hell.'')

==20th century genocides==

20th century examples include:

*1916-1917: The Ottoman and Turkish genocide of the [[Armenia]]ns
*1932-1933: The Soviet genocide of the Ukrainians ([[Holodomor]])
*1939-1945: The Nazi [[Holocaust]]
*1979-1981: The Khmer Rouge in [[Cambodia]]
*1991-1995: The former [[Yugoslavia]], involving the killing of [[Bosnia]]n Muslims
*1995: Hutu genocide of the Tutsi population in [[Rwanda]]

Communism killed 60 million in the 20th century, according to ''Le Monde'' and more than 100 million people according to ''The Black Book of Communism''.

==International conventions==

In 1948, The United Nations Genocide Convention defined "genocide":

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Despite this lip service the United Nations has failed to recognize the events in the [[Darfur]] region of [[Sudan]] as genocide. [[Amnesty International]], and the [[African Union]] likewise only acknowledge the "tragedy" in Darfur but refuse to characterize the situation as genocide.Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) director Jean-Hervé Bradol called the term genocide "inappropriate" and its deputy emergency director Dr. Mercedes Taty said, ''"I don't think that we should be using the word 'genocide' to describe this conflict." ''

The European Union and the United States government both officially recognize Darfur as genocide.

The term applies mostly to mass killings since the beginning of the 20th century, although throughout history there have been many cases of bloodshed like this. Even in the Bible, there was the Israelite conquest of Canaan, where God instructed them "...do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." ([[Deuteronomy]] 20:16).

[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Genocide]]

Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster

2007-12-11T19:48:03Z

RamenNoodle: /* I didn't know straw man arguments were encyclopedic */

Somebody screwed up the references.

== Mockery and Pastafarianism? ==

{{QuoteBox|The Discovery Institute has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."[3] Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians".}}
I don't quite get the connection between those two sentences. How does them calling themselves "Pastafarians" argue for or against FSM mocking traditional religion? I get that the entire thing is (intelligently) designed to mock a whole bunch of stuff, but those two sentences made me go "Huh?" in the current form. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's not the designation of themselves as Pastafarians but their establishment of FSM as a deity which is the mockery. Anyway, it's a good parody and I always get a laugh out of it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, those are my thoughts, too. Just found those sentences next to each other a tad confusing. Thanks for verifying/clarifying. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The purpose of this ruse of a vulgar depiction is the same one used in Germany from 1933 to 1945 against certain religious groups. There are still present today those who get a laugh or two from those depictions. The historic use of these types should therefore be presented in their appropriate historic context. Their associations should be noted to allow such distinctions to be presented. You can still go to places where this kind of stereotyping isn't such a light hearted poke in the ribs. Savvy?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

==Food for thought==

Finally a theory I can sink my teeth into. I can't stomach much of the tripe that evolutionists bring to the table.

*If naturalistic laws do not explain life's origin, then life must have been created. This theory is called intelligent design. (back cover of [http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Evolution-Molecular-Knowledge/dp/0976639408 Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design])

This doesn't mean that ID can explain the origin of life, but rather that ID asserts naturalism can't either. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The whole problem with this ID discussion is that both attackers and defenders of ID don't see the difference between the scientific and the religious domain. The scientific domain describes WHAT happens, and here the only theory available is evolution. The religious domain however, describes WHY it happens, and here everybody should be free to find an explanation. Christians will say God coordinates the whole process, while atheists will say it is just a natural process, where everything happens by accident and without a deeper meaning.{{Unsigned|Carcoke}}
:Your analysis is incomplete. The [[Bible]] does indeed say what happened, and in what order. It even says ''when'' it happened. Oh, sure, estimates of the "when" vary, with a range of about 320 years (215 years for the Sojourn in [[Egypt]], 60 years for the birth of [[Abraham]], and 45 years for the chronology of the Divided Kingdoms Northern and Southern). But you can't get around this simple fact: that the Bible contains back-to-back narratives of human history that span the entire time from [[creation]] to the Crucifixion and about thirty years after that. It is the only single source that can make this claim (although ''[[The Annals of the World]]'' reviews history from multiple sources to cover the same period).

:Now the distinction you draw is all very well. But when the Bible ''does'' make a statement on the ''what'' and even the ''when'' as well as the ''why'', you have to deal with it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:So what will you do when the Bible says one thing, and the Koran, Talmud or another religious scripture tells another thing. You may ''believe'' that the Bible is right, but you can't tell other people that they ''have to'' deal with it. Otherwise you say that the Bible (and with it Christianity) is superior to other religions, which seems a very dangerous statement to me.

::See [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:31, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Dangerous? If you lived in Nazis Germany between 1933 - 1945, or Russia, China, Cuba, ...etc. I'm currently sitting in a country where freedom of religion and speech still apply. Where anybody can say their religion is superior to every other. Liberty and freedom to say and believe what your conscience believes. Maybe some believe that is dangerous. Is that what you mean by being very dangerous?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:44, 24 November 2007 (EST)

==FSM and ID criticism==

Critiques of [[Intelligent Design]] should be discussed at [[Talk:Intelligent design]], and they should be aimed at improving the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:56, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==A tangle of pasta==

ID opponents argue that [[Intelligent Design]] claims to explain the origin of life, and contrast this "claim" with Pastafarians' nonsensical explanations of [[Global Warming]], [[gravity]] and [[UFO]]s.
*Which opponents have argued this?

Self-professed believers have called themselves "Pastafarians" (reference to FSM's "noodly appendages").
*Very funny, but hardly encyclopediic.

FSM is used by [[atheist]]s, such as [[Richard Dawkins]] [http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour2_100606.html], as a modern version of [[Russell's teapot]].
*This needs to be fleshed out before mentioning it.

A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the idea.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm</ref>
*If there's really a book, is it about the parody itself, or is it a critique of [[Intelligent design]]?

The parody was created to mock the teaching of [[Intelligent Design]] in Kansas science classrooms. <ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]</ref>
*Too obvious for words.

I explained what's wrong with each thing I cut, using bullet points. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0812976568/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0836771-4873759?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178347449&sr=8-1 Yes,there really is a book.] It is both an expansion of the parody and a critiqque of Intelligent design.[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 02:46, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Deceit ==

Could someone explain how this category demarcation is appropriate? I can grant you the "liberal" part (though I personally think that there's nothing actually liberal about it), but there just is no evidence of [[deceit]]. Using the word deceit implies that they are hiding their motives; they say they are a parody religion and they say precisely what their motives are. Maybe a link to the site would help, so you can see for yourself? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:53, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

I believe that they are deceitful because they are really atheists and rather than saying they want God out of the classroom, they make this ridiculous parody that mocks religion and God. That seems like deceit to me --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:41, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

:It's fine if you believe it, but this is an encyclopedia not an op ed section. The [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Comandments]] state "Everything you post must be true and verifiable" and "Always cite and give credit to your sources" and "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry."
:If we take a look at the official site, we find the following statement:
::Q: Are you an atheist / heathen / what?
::A: I don’t have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. Teach Creationism in school, fine, but don’t teach it in a science classroom...."
:So if you want to make the claim that he is flat out lying, you need some way to back that up, other than just a gut instinct. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:10, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Seems more like liberal satire to me. A lot of liberals use satire and snark to make conservatives sound dumb. In fact, you might want to create a new category, "liberal slander," or something like that, and this article might be better suited for that then deceit.-[[User:Darius|Darius]] 13:16, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

:Satire, yes. The creator of the "religion" (and it's "followers") openly admit that Pastafarianism is supposed to be satire. I still don't think anything more serious (such as deceit or slander) has been properly shown, however. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:16, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
::I think it's more [[liberal hypocrisy]] than [[liberal deceit]]. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:53, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
::On a related note, may I ask why my edit removing the words "thinly veiled attempt" was reverted? I feel that the statement as it stands now implies that Pastafarians are hoping to deceive somebody about their intentions. They're not. To say that it is a "thinly veiled attempt" at mockery is like saying that calling someone a "dumb stupid-face" is a "thinly veiled attempt" at insult. The phrase is unnecessary and inaccurate. [[User:Rstaylor|Rstayor]] 14:52, 9 November 2007 (EDT)

== I didn't know straw man arguments were encyclopedic ==

Seriously, why is this even here? That Dawkins uses it and that there's a book about it hardly makes it notable. Dawkins is not the atheist god (though they treat him that way, ironically enough) and his word is not truth, and any idget can get a book published by some no-name company and sold on Amazon.com (e.g. William Rivers Pitt). That being said, I could see this being briefly mentioned in the [[Intelligent Design]] article in a list of the many straw man arguments atheists/evolutionists use against ID, but it really doesn't deserve its own article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:30, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Ra'men [[User:RamenNoodle|RamenNoodle]] 14:48, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Genocide

Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster