So then it isn’t vastly different. Yes?

Which question?

So then the bombing of Dresden was genocide?

A good while back we had no working model for a heliocentric solar system nor any solid indication of it…until we did. But I’m pretty sure the earth was going around the sun even before we realized it, and even before we existed at all.

A Brief History of Time was great! I’d also definitely recommend it to all.

The same way we assure people consenting to anything at all are not being forced to. We try our best basically. And sometimes we’ll probably get it wrong and need to improve. I’m completely ok with that when the alternative is guaranteed preventable suffering. Just like I’m ok with people using power of attorney to protect the finances of people with dementia, even if sometimes it gets misapplied.

I literally said war is horrible. I’m not at all saying it’s a happy fun thing we should strive towards.

I’m much more worried about a future where we would not be willing to repeat doing whatever is required to stop a fundamentally evil empire that is actively committing actual genocide.

What would have been a better course of action for the Allies that wouldn’t result in greater death and suffering? I can’t think of anything myself… but perhaps you have some ideas beyond surrendering?

Many would argue those atrocities of the past were justified.

Do evil things to prevent greater evil. If you disagree with that, that’s totally ok too. But what would you have had the Allies do in WWII? Just like, lose?

probably options between surrender and nuclear warfare

Yes, a ground invasion. Which was mentioned in the previous comment. And no, I don’t think it was intended to ‘punish’ civilians, but rather to make clear that the Japanese empire could not win. A common claim is that it actually saved civilian lives.

the US in Afghanistan, despite being shitty, were not doing genocide

Agreed. But they were killing a part of an ethnic group in the process. And it included civilians at times. Doesn’t seem vastly dissimilar. And the goal in the fire bombings of Germany was absolutely to kill German civilians and it was explicitly stated as such.

if the numbers were the same, does it matter?

Yes, very much so. The intent and methods absolutely matter. 9/11 killed thousands of civilians, but it would absurd to consider it genocide.

Is the Holodomor “not as bad” as Pol Pot’s genocide?

Simply put, yes. But more importantly, they are fundamentally different things, which is what I’m pointing out.

What would you call this category you propose?

Doesn’t matter to me as long as it’s agreed upon.

what word would you use for what Israel is doing?

I’d probably just stick with warfare. Brutal and horrible warfare. They are waging war to destroy an enemy that attacked them, and in doing so are killing a fuck load of civilians in the process. Sort of like Britain in WWII.

I’ll pose a question back, how many civilian deaths/collateral damage does it take for it to be genocide in your eyes? What if the Israeli’s only killed 1 single civilian as collateral damage? 10? 100? 1000?

To me, genocide requires intentional effort to end a group of people and/or their culture through specific and measurable actions. Some definitions agree with me, others don’t.

In regards to nuclear weapons use in WWII, the dominant narrative is that the alternative is a ground invasion with greater loss of life. I guess the Allies just surrendering was an option to… but that’s would have lead to more genocide, no?

And while I know that’s the UN definition. I’m saying I disagree with it for being too broad and including most forms of warfare. I think actually planned slaughter of an entire group with the attempt of elimination is worth keeping a separate (and worse) category.

Most accept that the horrors of WWII committed by the Allies were ‘worth it’ to stop the more evil Axis. But if it actually was worth it is perhaps worth debating, I don’t disagree.

By this definition nearly everything the Allies did in WWII was genocide. To name just a few:

-firebombing of German cities (such as Dresden)

-unrestricted submarine warfare

-bombing of Tokyo

-Hiroshima/Nagasaki

Doesn’t seem vastly different from the firebombing of German cities by the Allies.

War is horrible. But it isn’t always genocide.

We don’t need to know for it to be deterministic.

I’m confident you strongly support allowing it as I have never met someone who witnessed a loved one suffer like that and does not support lessening their suffering.

So since you support allowing people to end their own lives in that context, you understand that people can indeed consent to death. So perhaps consenting to death should be permitted in other contexts too. That’s the only point I was making.

you can sign a contract to allow me to bludgeon you to death, but it’s still murder regardless of your consent

I agree this is the current law. But I certainly don’t agree with this law. Do you?

I feel people should absolutely be allowed to consent to death, or potential death. And I mean, we already can in various other contexts like skiing in avalanche terrain, ordering too many big macs, or medically assisted suicide to prevent suffering from incurable conditions (at least in a few civilized places).

Sounds to me like we lack the understanding as to why there are different outcomes in what we perceive as identical circumstances.

A dice roll appears random too, but it isn’t if one understands all of the inputs and variables precisely.

Nope, not really. But even if we did have 2 completely different solved sets of physical rules for minuscule quantum stuff versus everything else, all events would still be casual. It wouldn’t change anything.

All things, including human life experiences, are absolutely and completely predetermined as part of a chain of causal events.

I used to live a 10 hour drive from the closest McDonald’s. I think there was a lot of demand for the city that was in between.

Or maybe don’t work at such a place? Don’t agree to an unfair deal. Quit. Force the employer to change.