Genocide

>why is killing people based on their ethnicity unethical?
I hate this place.

[Citation needed]

>WAAAAAAA KILLING PEOPLE BASED ON EVOLUTIONARY TRIBAL INTERESTS IS EEEEVILLLLL
>killing people for how much money they have is justifiable

i love this leftist reddit meme

>killing people for how much money they have is justifiable

Who said that?

There is nothing wrong with genociding competing races. Blacks in the US are a massive plague on Whites, why shouldn't the Whites get rid of them?

>US
>Whites

>What exactly is inherently unethical about genocide?
Nothing. Ethics are either normative or deontological and neither can make a solid argument against genocide.

>Why can't we remove undesirable populations from our society if they pose a threat to a society's wellbeing?
Nice smuggling of normative concepts in there. I'd say the main reason why you can't is that you don't have a body of 40-60 year old men to tail end the core of your military forces, shooting and raping their way through occupied territory where "the other" is deemed to be unworthy of life.

You know, a material and social incapacity to implement genocide.

Greetings reddit

>reddit
American

>What exactly is inherently unethical about genocide?

God DAMN this board is going to shit FAST. It was okay as recently as a couple months ago and now its dominated by 15 year olds all of a sudden.

Where exactly do you see yourself removed from the equation?

thats never actually happened though
even if you buy into the edgelord bullshit about destroying your enemy, genocides are rarely successful in actually destroying the group they target

I guess it would depend on how you want about that genocide. Killing a people through gradual assimilation and cultural shifts is genocide, but it isn't violent doesn't cause much distress if done properly. On the other hand killing people rapidly to achieve a genocide is generally considered immoral for the suffering and end to human life. If you are nihilist, might is right, or complete self preservation than I guess nothing is inherently wrong with genocide. Just be male sure that your own group is always on top because of you ever falter it would not be unreasonable to assume that your enemies will follow your examples.

The material capacity for Australian aboriginal communities to militarily resist the British state is nil.

This tbqh. was the peak, it's been all downhill from there.

The problem lies in who decides who is undesirable. Any government that has the power to kill undesirables can just go and kill anyone it dosnt like

Yes, this is the nature of social capacities. The question is what "is ethical" in general. Genocide is just an example of the trolley problem.

Well what people precive as "ethical" really depends on the society and what it accept.
If you have a society that is taught to acknowledge and accept the killing of "undesirables", then genocide will be seen as perfectly ethical by that society

>really depends on the society and what it accept.
So you support primitive normativity recapitulated through post-modernism? Stick to Anthropology.

No, im just saying that what people perceive as ethical is subjective.
Im not saying i support genocide

>society's wellbeing
Whose society? How do you gauge wellbeing?

Should all that does not benefit you be destroyed?

You're saying that you support crude normativity rather than a deontological or consequentialist ethics. Seriously: stick to anthro.

I not saying i suppourt anything
im saying that how people see ethics is based on the society they are in and what they were taught
If you seriously think all people think the same then you clearly don't belong here

Where the fuck did he say that?

They never would have been a military threat anyway they barely invented the spear

/this, no matter how many of a specific groups are doing something wrong, you cannot hold every member of that group responsible for these actions. One really shouldn't have to ask that question, if it was meant seriously.

You need to read more recent works on the frontier wars.
When he said ethics have a positive content unsupported by either deontology or consequentialism. You know, the fucking basis of the cutting edge of ethical works?

I never said that it had "positive content" i said that if society is taught to accept different things as ethical, then thats what they accept, for better or for worse.
jesus christ do you honestly belive that people everywhere have the exact same ethics? You have no fucking business being on a history board

ie: You accept the positive content of social norms as a positive content. You're not an ethicist, you're an anthropologist—that's nice, but it doesn't qualify you to enter a philosophy department.

You have no business engaging in the humanities if you don't have a disciplinary humility regarding your claims.

What im saying is that peoples beliefs and morals are shaped by the society that they are in, hence the reason why morals are subjective. Im not suppourting any philosophy, just sating fact

>I have a view on the content of historical morality
>I am not supporting an ethical position
Get the fuck out of this thread.

...

Can you fucking read? Im not stating a viewpoint on anything. Im saying that different people have different views based on what their society has taught them. That is fact. I never said thats good or bad either. If your society says genocide is bad, then people will belive its bad, if your society says that genocide is okay, ten people will belive its okay. Morals are subjective.

...

There is at least one person who advocates in the Commie threads.

Buddy youre on a history board. Your little theory about everyone having the same morals and ethics is nowhere better debunked than here

Don't try in a phil department.

the only acceptable "genocide" is that perpetrated against white euro-amerikans and israelis

Dont try in a history department

Lenin.

>genocide is good because I'm sure I'd never be on the wrong end of it, I mean I'm white after all
back to /pol/ kiddo

>thats never actually happened though
Horseshit. Plenty of peoples have been entirely wiped out and made taking that land much easier. That poster is an edgelord, but come on. Genocide can work.

Yeah that's the problem when you use a power word like "ethics" and shite your trousers in public.

Good luck with the laundry.

what said, but less edgy
a lot of people in the world currently have this view that you shouldn't kill people who dindu nuffin, even though they're part of an "undesirable" group of people. Yes, it's shoved down their throats from an early age, but the status quo is the status quo.

>What exactly is inherently unethical about genocide?

Killing people indiscriminately for no remotely justifiable reason (i.e. they're actually a threat to you) is bad for PR so yes.

Why can't we remove undesirable populations from our society if they pose a threat to a society's wellbeing?

ethnic cleansing/mass expulsion=/=mass killing

Okay OP, they decide to legalize genocide. Then they decide your ethnic group is undesirable and start purging you.

/thread

Didn't I see this exact same thread on Veeky Forums? Let me guess, you migrated here because they told you to fuck off?

POL -> reeee

Motherfucker really

>Why can't we remove undesirable populations from our society if they pose a threat to a society's wellbeing?

If you start genociding people, you're the one who is a threat to society's well being.

If that's true then why are nations that carry out genocides frequently gangbanged by their neighbors?

yeah thats the problem when you know absolutely nothing about human history
some philosopher you are

>If your society says genocide is bad, then people will belive its bad, if your society says that genocide is okay, ten people will belive its okay. Morals are subjective.
You're ignoring the fact that our morality is partly influenced by our biological makeup. Our mind isn't a tabula rasa that can be filled with literally anything.

Welcome to &Humanities

Such a mistake.

Are you fine with being disposed of if the state suddenly decides you "pose a threat" to society?

And you also have the possibility of becoming a criminal, mentally ill, both, the next Stalin, etc. but we don't punish you for future possibilities.

>thats never actually happened though
A clusterfuck of human ethnic groups have been genocided but only a few were actually recorded.

Who knows how many black ethnic groups dont exist in Africa today due to how genocidal niggers are in general.

I'm a white male in my own white country.

Where does denying someone's right to live and self-determination lie? And if it does lie in either, why exactly would it still be invalid?

I wouldn't call gradual assimilation "genocide", especially when it always ends with some change of the host culture that is assimilating another culture, usually in the form of cultural appropriation. There's also some aspects of the assimilated group that don't always conflict with the host group so that can always stick around.

>THEIR POINT IS COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL AND ALL CAPS
>my point is rational and lowercaps

I win the argument.

Because it's fucking evil.

itt: underage edgelords

Also mass murder shouldn't be the fucking answer to undersirable people, especially subjectively undesirable populations.

Summer is here

Looks like summers begun for the kids.

The thing about genocide is that there is no inherent force that can rightfully declare a certain subgroup a victim of genocide. Even a government is a mob of humans. Humans according to the law of nature, are all equal until they are dead, even if they have less of a chance to survive (ie mental illness). Since, according to nature, all humans are equal, humans can only rightfully kill in order to preserve their own life. Any other killing is morally wrong.

Geez dude, got any morals. Murder is wrong*. Genocide is hundreds of counts of murder, usually committed by governments who should protect our right to life. Furthermore, genocide assumes stereotypes that a certain group is always bad, regardless of individual. Don't judge everyone as one, but on an individual basis. This is too often done by both sides of the political spectrum.
*except in self-defense.
That being said, genocide is useful from an amoral, pragmatic standpoint. Lemme check my Machiavelli. Can't find it and need to go

Just round them up and remove them to a place at which they're irrelevant (Indian reservations) or sterilize them and put them on welfare until they die.

There's no need for death camps.

Is there anything inherently wrong with genocide? No.

However, there are many better alternatives, such as just forcing unwanted ethnic groups to leave or integrate. And, unlike genocide, this has actually removed unwanted ethnic groups.

>Why can't we murder our society for our society's wellbeing?
Collectivist cucks get out

I don't think the reservations thing is working all that well, last I checked the population is going up and there are prominent Natives around, just not a whole lot.

>killing innocent people instantly sends them to the wonderful, pearly gates of heaven
>but killing innocent people is wrong

Can you name any successful genocides in modern times besides the Armenian Genocide?

You realize that points out the flaw in an argument for genocide right? What's to stop any people you decide to genocide from fighting back or allying with other nations to fuck your shit up?

The Brits removing the Thuggee in India counts as a decent act of genocide, pretty much everyone is in agreement on that score.

except perhaps some SJW who deserves to be strangled with a silken cord.

>What exactly is inherently unethical about genocide? Why can't we remove undesirable populations from our society if they pose a threat to a society's wellbeing?
Keep those Anti-Western values to yourself, it you try to force them on other people, you will be suppressed with extreme prejudice.

/pol/tard BTFO

>i can't put myself in other's shoes: the thread

Gauls, old prussians, carthaginians, philistenes, thracians, dacians, native americans. Should I continue?

>modern times

>Gauls
>thracians
>dacians
>philistenes

>successful
>native americans
>Gauls

Rather than genocide wouldn't it be easier to neutralize any undesired populations and stop them from producing any offspring. A bit of radiation to the pubic area and the ability to Create children is gone no real harm done

From a strictly pragmatic point of view, if the allies had simply genocided the entire German population out of existence following World War 1, fewer people would have died than were killed in World War 2.

Not that I'm rationalizing it (what happens when a modern industrial power on the verge of being taken over by artificial intelligence normalizes exterminating humans like insects?) but it does make you think.

I believe it will reach a point when AI will help us select the best genes for the human species. That way the next generation can be 3 times as strong smart than the last, and we can also eliminate Many if not all hereditary abnormalities and diseases. Eventually creating super humans

Define undesirable and justify yourself as not being one of them.

Well, I'm not justifying my self I very well may not consider my self as having great genes to pass on to the next generation. By undisierable population I mean people who posses traits like disease or genes that may impede human evolution forward. You know kinda like selective breeding. It is done with dogs all the time. You pick out a dog out of a litter that has the traits you desire. And then you breed it again and again until the traits you are looking for become more prononced.

If you kill them it means you will never have to worry about them again.

>A.I
>helping

No user to an A.I you are just an insect it would rather kill you then use the matter in the body for whatever it wants.