Tibet

No, I am not "working backwards logically" and it really wouldn't matter if I was.

I was demonstrating what is wrong, besides the spelling and grammar, with the absolute statement:

 

Some would call your comments nitpicking. To say that enemy soldiers are legitimate targets is not to deny there are exceptions; certain situations where they cease to become legitimate targets.

To disparage the spelling and grammar in a statement that is esssentally correct except for an abbreviation of a word is petty and needlessly argumentative IMO. Maybe if we keep to the substance of the issues being debated rather than insults we can continue this debate without it being locked

 

Grieg, if you think I'm nitpicking, please come right out and say it. Don't hide behind "some would say" weasel words.

Note he said that enemy soldiers are always legitimate targets, which negates the possibility of there being any exceptions, such as a surrendering soldier. In a discussion on what is an evil act that's pure rubbish.

 

Grieg ,Gryle's right.

The word "always" is an absolute term.I don't know about you,but those who took General paper(GP) would know what i mean.It doesn't leave room for any discussion at all if the word "always" is included.

 

Hehe another example of, what shall we call it?...precision... in language.
If you think I'm a weasel then come right out and say it
I won't contest the dictionary definition of words like always but I am aware of how such terms are used in the common parlance i.e. with much less precision than you are attempting to read into it.

Some, perhaps even me, might call that nitpicking

ps. if you really thought that he intended to include surrendered soldiers in his statement you might have asked him. It is clear that he did not intend that. If however you wanted to score a point by pointing out his imprecise language and attempting to use that to skew the meaning of his statement well then that is a different thing isn't it?

 

Exactly... that's what I meant to say, but Grieg put it more eloquently... You can't expect people to overly describe every single fact beyond reasonable detail, as there it would take far too much time, and instead of being called 'weasels' we'd all be accused of pretentiousness Having only 'browsed' the Geneva Convention I thought Majorwoody seemed spot on with a general overview

 

Your right Smeg,i am not nitpicking on Majorwoody's lack of precision here if you get what i mean.It's just that,having studied the language,i just wanted to pointed out that gryle was right.

 

You're saying that codes of law cover all evils? In all times and places?

 

Under which code of law?Whose code of law?Which era's code of law?

 

i think its fairly safe to say that most cultures and codes of behaviour throughout history have condemed and punished those who commit murder, robbery or rape...that a soldier who kills enemy soldiers in combat is not a murderer.....that a leader who orders the death of ordinary civillians wether by gunshot ,gulag or starvation is an evil man and a murderer...when he does it to millions of his own people ,he is imo very evil....i understand that many admire mao..he was a great man in the historical sense like attila ,hitler and stalin ...many still defend and admire hitler and stalin even today ...it dosent change the fact that they were very bad guys whose hands were drenched in blood of the innocent....

 

But you see the starvation was not intentional I have seen no facts to prove this. They simply forced people to increase the number of seeds they plant on their farm not for example burn the crop and spread salt on the farmland.

 

gunter,ordering peasant farmers to mismanage their own crops to the point of failure seems an evil criminal act to me but for the sake of argument i will agree to call it manslaughter instead....those millions of starved familys aside ..mao still has to answer for millions of other gulag deaths and outright executions i belive he outstrips both hitler and stalin in these deaths alone...china under mao was every bit as scarie and brutal as russia under stalin ,we dont get to hear the horror stories because maos cronies are still in charge

 

Glad to see we are back near the start of this yet again. There is no evidence that it was intentional for the crop to fail. Simply the theory was that since they are going to industrialize they will need more people in urban area = less farmers which means the farmers need to produce more crops.

 

i realize it was not mao,s intention that the rice crops fail...it was not stalins intention that his huge army was knocked on its ass by the wehrmacht in june of 41......it WAS his fault that his army had no training in defensive tactics and no maps of their own country and almost no competent feild grade officers..most of the bright and innovative soviet colonels and generals already moldering two years under a few feet of russian dirt...

 

Even if it wasn't intentional, that doesn't change the fact that it was criminal... Ever heard of negligence? Mass-manslaughter perhaps

 

Since both of you have ADMITTED to the fact that it's manslaughter.Then it would go to show that he's not evil isn't it?For manslaughter means the unintentional causing of death of someone ain't it?Now it becomes much clearer.

It is MAO's FAULT that people die,i do not dispute that if you notice majorwoody,but i dispute the fact that you call him evil now that you agree that he was guilty of manslaughter

 

Yes but majorwoody and I are arguing that Manslaughter and Negligence are forms of evil as well... thats why we lock people up for it

The way i see it, if you allow tens of millions of people to starve by fault of your conduct; you know that they are starving; and you do nothing to prevent it; a feeble excuse 'but i didn't intend it' isnt going to save you, and it shouldn't in Mao's case... Negligently letting people die and not caring whether or not they do or not is no less evil than deliberately causing their deaths...

P.S. Mao is guilty of murder anyway... If you do something that you know is likely to cause death, regardless of your intention, and someone dies, you are guilty of "'Reckless Murder"... Otherwise idiotically blinding oneself to the consequences of their actions would be a defence to murder, and we don't want that do we?

 

Well then you need to now prove and convince us why negligence and manslaughter are forms of evil now rather than stating them.And locking people up for crimes doesn't necessarily mean that they are evil.This comment has no basis and i await your definition and convincing.

And in Mao's case,let's be realistic.He did know that there were people starving.BUT he made efforts to save them.You ain't gonna blame him if there's no food in the country to save people with!And furthermore,with the cold war raging on(haha cold war raging on...sounds like an oxymoron) who was going to give them aid?Russia certainly wasn't going to either having been pissed by Mao's refusal to to toe the soviet party lines.In this case,it's like you witness someone being murdered but did nothing to help them,but your not evil and you couldn't help it for you have nothing to beat the murderer with! So he cared that people die,but couldn't do much about it.

And in answer to your PS,isn't that changing something you already admitted to another answer?First you agree with manslaughter,then you say it's reckless murder.Such blatant changing of stands implies that everytime you can't defend a point,you change your point.Now i am sure your integrity won't allow it and it's an oversight on your part. And it would mean that i refuse to dispute this point seeing as how i see that it is inconsistent with your earlier admissions though i CAN dispute it.

 

Not changing my perspective at all... Merely saying that in a hypothetical trial of Mao-Tse-Tsung there would be evidence to show that he was guily of both murder, and manslaughter (probably about 20 million counts apiece)... You can be tried for more than one crime

Yes I am, because there was not food production capacity due to Mao's actions of sending the farmers to the city

Tricky... It is really my subjective opinion. You are right that locking people away doesnt always make them evil... I do not believe the manslaughter is evil in all cases, however in many cases it is.

The way I see it
- Mao sent farmers to the city
- His goal was industrialisation
- Millions starved
- He had a duty to his people (to prevent harm coming to them)
- That duty was not met

I think these facts would be enough to establish both Murder and Manslaughter... Whether it is evil or not really depends upon ones individual morailty and what they consider evil. Alot of women and children died in horrible conditions due to Mao's actions, so I consider him to be evil.

 

Yes there can be more than one charge in a court proceeding.However,to charge one to be both guilty of manslaughter and murder is what i consider to be oxymoron.I don't think the modern court is that senseless.However,i do admit i am not well versed in the law,can someone help us out here?

Anyway,as i have said,he made a policy,he failed.HE IS AT FAULT.
However,you don't go and tell him he is evil.The actions may be evil,like causing death in a manslaughter,though the person is not.Yes there are manslaughter which is evil,but that is not reason enough to say that Mao was evil in that sense too.

In that sense,a lot of people would be guilty for having famine in their land because they somehow didn't see it coming.Then everyone or rather,every ruler that had a famine in their land would be evil isn't it?