Jump to content
IrnScrabbleChf52

Silence=Compliance

Recommended Posts

I don't know, Vetlessen is pretty bomb.

If you want a general Genocide bad card:

 

 

Lang 85 Berel, Prof Philosophy, The Philisophical Forum, vol. XVI, #1-2 Winter 84/85,

A number of further questions arise in connection with the act of genocide, in particular with the status of its agents. That genocide entails the intended destruction of a group does not by itself imply that the destruction must itself be the act of a group; but the extent of actions required by any design for genocide is so broad as virtually to ensure that the purpose will involve corporate decisions and effort. Admittedly, the same technological advances (in communications, for example) that make genocide as a collective action increasingly possible also increase the likelihood that an individual acting alone could initiate such actions. (When the push of a single button can produce immeasurable catastrophic effects, we discover the possibility of an order of destruction beyond genocide as well: “omnicide.”) But it is also clear that the opprobrium attending the term “genocide” comes in part from its connotation of a corporate action - as if the same act or set of acts would be a lesser fault, easier to understand or even excuse, if a single person rather than a group were responsible, with the connection of the latter (we suppose) to a public moral code and to decisions that would have had to be made or supported collectively. The fact of corporate responsibility sometimes diminish the enormity of an action, as when the difficulty of assigning specific responsibility gives to the action a vagueness of reference similar to that of a natural or otherwise impersonal force. But the almost necessarily corporate origins of genocide seem rather to accentuate its moral enormity, multiplying the individual acts of consciousness that would have been required to produce the larger corporate act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this dude Ward churchill writes some decent cards from what i hear.....

 

I'd be careful reading churchill in debate rounds...his academic credibility is all but ruined, and there is a pretty substantial community of scholars who pick apart his work because of that...

 

Just a though.

 

Also, TF, as exciting as your caps-lock sig is, the copyright claims are already established at the footer of every page...;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be careful reading churchill in debate rounds...his academic credibility is all but ruined, and there is a pretty substantial community of scholars who pick apart his work because of that...

 

Just a though.

 

Also, TF, as exciting as your caps-lock sig is, the copyright claims are already established at the footer of every page...;)

 

I ran him all last year on the college courts topic without hearing a single "churchill is stupid/not native/lied/was fired" argument. And i mean, EVERY negative round.

 

 

Lol, the sig. is making fun of chris. I just thought it was funny because it was in his sig. too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genocide requires action- the alternative is direct complicity with evil

Vetlessen. Professor of Philosophy at the University of Olso [Journal of Peace Research] 2000

pg. 520-522

The moral issues raised by genocide are not confined to the nexus of agent and victim. Every contemporary citizen cognizant of a specific ongoing instance of genocide, regardless of where in the world, counts as a bystander. From the view point of an agent of genocide, bystanders are person possessing a potential to halt ongoing actions. Even the most initially passive and remote bystander possesses a potential to cease being a mere onlooker to the events unfolding. Responsibility for halting what is unfolding cannot rest with the victims alone; it must also be seen to rest with the party not itself affected but which is acknowledgeable about- which is more or less literally witnessing- the genocide that is taking place. Not acting is still acting. The failure to act when confronted with such action, as is involved in accomplishing genocide is a failure which carries a message to both the agent and sufferer: the action may proceed. Knowing, yet still not acting, means granting acceptance to the action. Such inaction entails letting things be done by someone else-clearly, in case of acknowledged genocide, inaction here means complicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...