Shouldn't this be in the history books?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm
redefining things

[KrazyHorse]

I suppose if Hindus wanted to be massacred then a series of massacres might not necessarily be a conflict.

So, technically, genocide is not necessarily a subset of conflict.

[aneeshm]

And again:

But more generally, you've missed the point completely. My objection was that this event, which was, death-toll wise, much more significant that the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, is not mentioned AT ALL. I don't want a mention of the death toll, I don't want a detailed account, I want nothing except that it be acknowledged that it happened. I'd be happy with a single reference in one line which lists uprisings of the time. But even that is not done. This is not unbiased history writing.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm beginning to see why it was so easy for Europeans and Muslims to kick the **** out of India...

[KrazyHorse]

We should sell tickets to this...

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I suppose if Hindus wanted to be massacred then a series of massacres might not necessarily be a conflict.

So, technically, genocide is not necessarily a subset of conflict.

Conflict usually implies two sides, both willing to aggress. When only one aggresses, with no response or resistance from the other, it is not termed a conflict.

[aneeshm]

And once again:

But more generally, you've missed the point completely. My objection was that this event, which was, death-toll wise, much more significant that the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, is not mentioned AT ALL. I don't want a mention of the death toll, I don't want a detailed account, I want nothing except that it be acknowledged that it happened. I'd be happy with a single reference in one line which lists uprisings of the time. But even that is not done. This is not unbiased history writing.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Conflict usually implies two sides, both willing to aggress

Maybe in your mind, son.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm
And once again:

Stop trying to change the subject. You brought it up, now stick with it.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Maybe in your mind, son.

You're free do define it any way you want, but in any sane discussion, conflict implies active participation and aggressive or defensive action from both participants.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Stop trying to change the subject. You brought it up, now stick with it.

That's plain false.

YOU brought it up, not me.

I'm just trying to get the topic back on track.

[Kuciwalker]

con·flict
–verb (used without object)
1. to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash: The account of one eyewitness conflicted with that of the other. My class conflicts with my going to the concert.
2. to fight or contend; do battle.
–noun
3. a fight, battle, or struggle, esp. a prolonged struggle; strife.
4. controversy; quarrel: conflicts between parties.
5. discord of action, feeling, or effect; antagonism or opposition, as of interests or principles: a conflict of ideas.
6. a striking together; collision.
7. incompatibility or interference, as of one idea, desire, event, or activity with another: a conflict in the schedule.
8. Psychiatry. a mental struggle arising from opposing demands or impulses.

stfu nub

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm


You're free do define it any way you want, but in any sane discussion, conflict implies active participation and aggressive or defensive action from both participants.

You can keep asserting it, but it doesn't make it any more true.

Any time two groups have incompatible goals they are in conflict. It is not a moral judgment on either side, nor is it a statement of moral equivalence. If I was bullying you around the playground then we'd have a conflict, whether or not you acted like a ***** and didn't put your fists up.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm


That's plain false.

YOU brought it up, not me.

Not just a liar, but a bad liar.

(this is me)

The only idiot here is the person who doesn't realise that somebody who makes unabashed value judgments about one side in a conflict cannot be assumed to be "unbiased" regarding that conflict.

(this is you)

It can be a conflict when there are two sides who are fighting. It is a genocide when one side simply massacres the other, encountering no opposition and no retaliation. Learn the difference.

Now, who brought up the definition of the word "conflict"?

[KrazyHorse]

I don't even have to do anything. He just keeps pwning himself.