you’re attributing the “expert” label to people and organizations whose “expertise” is self-proclaimed. this isn’t like covid, fauci, and the cdc type expertise that is based on literal verifiable science. why is “expert” even a term that’s being used in a conversation about abstract impossible to quantify concepts like foreign relations?
the argument “i’m right, because these people that call themselves ‘expert’ think so too” in the context of foreign relations is what’s known as argumentum ad populum.. please explain how i’m wrong
also, although obviously the herd mentality has made their judgment, i’m going to say it anyway: i’m not “pro-genocide” or “zionist” or any other form of “israel = best most valid everything” unlike the united states government, who will continue to send money, weapons, aircraft carriers, and your kids to defend israel at all costs. forever.
I think the misunderstanding at play is that this isn’t a question of foreign relations, but rather about the factual conditions of the conflict and whether they justify the legal and/or moral label of genocide.
Such factual conditions can be investigated through sound, empirical gathering of evidence, and any well defined concept of genocide can then be evaluated in that context.
This evidence gathering and following genocide evaluation can be much better performed by organizations with expertise and authority on such matters. Most of the listed organizations are considering expert evidence gatherers and experienced, empowered authorities of genocide evaluation.
Therefore, the fact that such a list of organizations agree on the evidence supporting the label, must weigh as evidence to those of us who do not have this expertise ourselves. It proves nothing outright, but should weigh heavily in the private opinion-forming of laymen.
fair enough. i see this perspective now, and will no longer criticize the “it’s genocide because ________ says it is” argument. thank you for the discussion!
you’re attributing the “expert” label to people and organizations whose “expertise” is self-proclaimed. this isn’t like covid, fauci, and the cdc type expertise that is based on literal verifiable science. why is “expert” even a term that’s being used in a conversation about abstract impossible to quantify concepts like foreign relations?
the argument “i’m right, because these people that call themselves ‘expert’ think so too” in the context of foreign relations is what’s known as argumentum ad populum.. please explain how i’m wrong
also, although obviously the herd mentality has made their judgment, i’m going to say it anyway: i’m not “pro-genocide” or “zionist” or any other form of “israel = best most valid everything” unlike the united states government, who will continue to send money, weapons, aircraft carriers, and your kids to defend israel at all costs. forever.
I think the misunderstanding at play is that this isn’t a question of foreign relations, but rather about the factual conditions of the conflict and whether they justify the legal and/or moral label of genocide.
Such factual conditions can be investigated through sound, empirical gathering of evidence, and any well defined concept of genocide can then be evaluated in that context.
This evidence gathering and following genocide evaluation can be much better performed by organizations with expertise and authority on such matters. Most of the listed organizations are considering expert evidence gatherers and experienced, empowered authorities of genocide evaluation.
Therefore, the fact that such a list of organizations agree on the evidence supporting the label, must weigh as evidence to those of us who do not have this expertise ourselves. It proves nothing outright, but should weigh heavily in the private opinion-forming of laymen.
fair enough. i see this perspective now, and will no longer criticize the “it’s genocide because ________ says it is” argument. thank you for the discussion!
You going to edit this edit?
done