undefined | Better HN

0 pointslukeschlather14y ago0 comments

I'd say a destroying a city definitely meets that definition. Deliberately destroying part of a national group. Also, the inhabitants of a city are definitely an ethnicity (though that depends on how restrictive a definition of ethnicity you use.) So, sure, you kill a lot of people it's not genocide, but you systematically eradicate a city, I'd call it genocide.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

ColinWright14y ago· 2 in thread

The inhabitants of a city are not limited to a single ethnicity, so it's still fundamentally wrong. However, this exchange won't get us any further. I have no doubt you won't be convinced, so there seems nothing to be gained by continuing. Feel free to use language as you will.

lukeschlatherOP14y ago

As I said, it depends on how restrictive a definition of ethnicity you use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic

> pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

The inhabitants of a city usually share a common and distinctive culture (and the like.) You're using extremely narrow definitions of genocide as well as ethnicity. Both are vague terms.

ColinWright14y ago

  > As I said, it depends on how restrictive
  > a definition of ethnicity you use.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less."

You appear to be choosing definitions that don't match those in dictionaries, but I'm sure they're perfectly cromulent.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse