Time for a new "Yet Another Mass Shooting Thread"

I wasn't actually implying you had. I was simply using it as an example of how anti-gay teachers, pastors, etc CAN and DO talk about sexual orientation to very young children. So all this talk about how children are too young to be exposed to such things per Florida's law is complete and demonstrable bullshit.

No doubt they were using the story of Sodom. If young children are old enough to hear discussions of sexual orientation from pastors and other church leaders, then they're old enough to hear it from teachers in a classroom setting. Of course, the laws only target situations where children might hear positive messages about LGBT+, while giving an unhindered platform to those who promote negative messages.

 

Leviticus, actually.

 

I have no idea whether the pastor was a Republican or a Democrat. He was Carter 1976, Reagan 1980. Luckily, he gave interviews before his death explaining his motivation.

 

You're better off in Administration.
That's not what this graph says at all. 51% refers to all American females.

 

I actually knew someone who voted the either party every other election. His idea was that he wanted "balance" in government.

He and I were never friends to begin with, so I didn't have to distance myself.

 

International legal standard?
Sounds like something a filthy stinking Christ killing globalist would say!
-conservatives

 

Or, Berlin, Wisconsin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin,_Wisconsin

maybe, New Berlin, Wisconsin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Berlin,_Wisconsin

 

Many people use the Wannseekonferenz, which I think stems from a misconception of what a genocide is.

 

A little, considering some slavery happens in the U.S. right now. But I'm not as worried about that as I am about other really horrible things which seem more likely.

But I'm curious -- that question seemed like a huge non sequitur to me. What was your point?

 

"When someone tells you who they are, believe them."

 

To me, the Holocaust began as soon as people in positions of power started making decisions motivated by a goal of having a German society that was Judenfrei. With that in mind, it stretches at least as far back as the Nuremberg Laws of 1935.

 

To show you who he is.
Your job now is to believe him.

 

I think we should worry about realistic things not unrealistic things.

 

Yep, not that long ago, easily transferable to here.

 

You should probably not worry about any of it. Nobody's coming after you.

 

I'm not coming from this from the angle of should these groups be included under a formal definition. Rather, I'm looking at a rationale as to why only four groups were included under the formal definition and a host of other groups were not included. That was the original question/statement I was responding to. It could be because we were less enlightened when the UN created the definition, or there could be other reasons. I personally don't have an issue with someone calling it a genocide or something else. It doesn't make the event more/less traumatic/harmful.

The four groups: nationality, race, ethnicity religion. The common thread with all of these categories is that they are more linked to multigenerational family linkage than other categories and therefore are easier to segregate/harm/remove. Take a newly married couple under any of these definitions. Execute them. Imprison them. Sterilize them. Isolate them. Strip them of their property. Deny them services/access. That crime is perpetuated onto future pre-determined generations of the group (their children).

There are a lot of other groups out there who have been discriminated against throughout history other than gender/gender identity and sexual orientation. Political party? Not on there. Non-religious ideological groups? Not on there. Formal trade groups or loosely affiliated occupational groups? Not on there. Kill professors or educators. Clear out a merchant class in a region. Systematically destroy peasants or farmers in a region. None of that is included. Disability status (heritable or not) is not included. The formal line per the definition could be redrawn today, but the line itself (whether we're talking about the definition of genocide or some other anti-discrimination statute) tends to be limited to groups that are most susceptible to harm on some basis (intensity, ability to identify/discriminate against, lasting effects on groups, etc).

Intent is the second part of the test. It requires proof that this was done on the basis of one of those four things. The Bosnian genocide was really a religious genocide (Bosnian Muslim is in the claim). Jim Crow IMO meets the criteria even if people (conveniently) do not think of it as such. "Whitifying" American Indians via ethnic/"national" is pretty easy IMO. The latter on the basis of religion (which is one path one could argue for trans or non-cis people) is not so clear cut. If American Indians endured things that could be described as genocide on the basis of religion rather than ethnicity/nationality, via things like "white schools in the early 20th Century", then why were Christian American Indians also sent? What about the Jews? This is also where the trans/sexual orientation via religion claim has issues. A homosexual attending a sexual orientation/gender affirming church could be targeted by the government while 90% of his/her/their congregation is not. A homosexual who "prayed the gay away" attending a fundamentalist church is not being targeted. Those are the formal burdens.

Again, I don't care what it's called. The harm is the harm and that's what matters. I'm looking at possible reasons why the definitions are what they are and if a trans purge/genocide could be determined to be as such in an international tribunal. I don't think it does. If it were up to me, group should be defined more on the basis of itemized qualifying criteria rather than identifying specific groups. But it's defined as it is for whatever reason(s) it is.

 

The church was in the largest city in the state.

 

I get your point; but I doubt that was *his* point. I don't think he actively wants people to think what posts like that encourage people to think.

 

1. When one is not a member of a group being persecuted or threatened with persecution, it is common to misread the degree of danger to those who are. That's been demonstrated historically over and over and over. So your belief, offered without substantiation, that the threats to gay and trans people are insignificant, isn't very persuasive.

2. And as a follow-on to that, humans have a long and storied history of dismissing even threats to themselves until disaster is unavoidable. Hell, that's happened in the U.S. in the immediate recent past.