[GA - Failed] - Against Racial Discrimination (2nd)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Comfed:
On the contrary, there is no discrimination with multiple layers. Under this resolution, discrimination can be justified to be on the basis of a characteristic that is merely perceived to be on the basis of race. As such, it can supersede the actual reality of the situation, which is discrimination on the basis of race.
Click to expand...
Nothing in the resolution says that discrimination cannot occur based on multiple characteristics.

Comfed:
Because of your resolution's flawed wording, that sort of discrimination is not considered to be racial discrimination, but instead discrimination on the basis of some trait which is arbitrarily perceived to be caused by race. The "racial characteristic" is not race, it is intelligence, or laziness, or literacy, or some other trait which could be perceived in a deeply racist society to be related to race.
Click to expand...
The point is that both are relevant racial characteristics.

Comfed:
Yes, but once again, you are conveniently ignoring what a definition actually is. I have already explained this point to you, and you have continued to deliberately ignore it, so there is obviously no point in continuing to debate this point. However, I will respond to this:
Click to expand...
We can debate the sematics of what the word "definition" means, or whether it applies to this, but that's irrelevant to what Section 4 actually does. It never refers to itself as a definition.

Comfed:
"All Chinese citizens" most certainly constitute a group. They are the group of all citizens of China. If you had, for the purposes of this resolution, defined "group" as something more specific, something that excluded the possibility of "all Chinese citizens" being covered under it, then you would be correct, but you did not.
Click to expand...
The resolution defines specific acts of genocide, not who it is targeted against. If you were to read the definition like this, then it would mean that effectively all national laws are prohibited, if not by this resolution by ones such as GA #601 which includes a similar provision (the use of that wording in this resolution is in fact why Wallenburg is a co-author). "Murderers", for example, would be a "group" and so eg imprisonment would be illegal isolation of murderers, constituting genocide. This is an absurdity and no rational nation would interpret the resolution this way.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
The point is that both are relevant racial characteristics.
Click to expand...
No, they are not. In this case, the only relevant "racial characteristic" is the one that is based on perception. As long as, in our hypothetical scenario, the employer maintains that the basis for their hiring policy is intelligence, rather than race, then they are free to actually discriminate on the basis of race. In effect, they are substituting what is in reality the case - racist discrimination - with what the resolution permits them to claim is the case.
Magecastle:
We can debate the sematics of what the word "definition" means, or whether it applies to this, but that's irrelevant to what Section 4 actually does. It never refers to itself as a definition.
Click to expand...
Then why did you choose to include it in a definition of genocide?
Magecastle:
The resolution defines specific acts, not who it is targeted against. If you were to read the definition like this, then it would mean that effectively all national laws are prohibited, if not by this resolution by ones such as GA #601 which includes a similar provision (the use of that wording in this resolution is in fact why Wallenburg is a co-author). "Murderers", for example, would be a "group" and so eg imprisonment would be illegal isolation of murderers. This is an absurdity and no rational nation would interpret the resolution this way.
Click to expand...
No, it does not create an absurdity as you suggest. The interpretation itself has to actually be absurd. Asserting that the one-child policy is a forced population control imposed on a group is not absurd.
 
Vote Against.

My reason is that it is proposing Segregation.
I Thought every human was to be equals.
Even though this is an online platform. We must remember Martin Luther Kings words
"I want black litter boys. Holding. White little girls hands"
 
Osk!ebot:
Vote Against.

My reason is that it is proposing Segregation.
I Thought every human was to be equals.
Even though this is an online platform. We must remember Martin Luther Kings words
"I want black litter boys. Holding. White little girls hands"
Click to expand...
You realise that this bans segregation?

Comfed:
No, they are not. In this case, the only relevant "racial characteristic" is the one that is based on perception. As long as, in our hypothetical scenario, the employer maintains that the basis for their hiring policy is intelligence, rather than race, then they are free to actually discriminate on the basis of race. In effect, they are substituting what is in reality the case - racist discrimination - with what the resolution permits them to claim is the case.
Click to expand...
Instead of just repeating this, could you actually explain how it is not possible that discrimination based on two characteristics is possible?

Comfed:
Then why did you choose to include it in a definition of genocide?
Click to expand...
This doesn't at all address the point. I'm not even sure what you mean by "to include it in a definition of genocide"; my point is that whether the term "definition" applies to it is irrelevant.

Comfed:
No, it does not create an absurdity as you suggest. The interpretation itself has to actually be absurd. Asserting that the one-child policy is a forced population control imposed on a group is not absurd.
Click to expand...
If we are to read "group" so broadly as to include "all residents of a nation", then it also includes groups such as "murderers". Your interpretation would, as mentioned, mean that eg imprisoning murders is illegal genocide. No nation would interpret the resolution this way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top