u/GSGhostTrain

Is it not implied when you respond to someone that it's part of the same conversation currently happening?

If someone says "I think we should update the definition to include X" and someone else says "The definition currently includes A, B, C, and D." would you not understand the following comment "I think the point is that X is not one of those categories."?

I'm confused I guess, because I feel like I am making the more inclusive/supportive argument? That is, that the UN's definition of genocide should be updated to include LGBTQ people. Are you saying people are offended at the idea of including them? Or that people are misunderstanding me and think I am saying they shouldn't be included?

I was banned for equating it to what?

That seems beside the point in a conversation about whether the formal definition should be updated or not though, doesn't it? No one was saying you couldn't call it genocide, just that the formal definition needs updating specifically because we all recognize it is leaving out people who should be included.

I don't understand what you mean. In this case, I am saying that the definition is inadequate because it doesn't encompass a very real kind of violence that is occurring. What is the analogy you're trying to make?

It's a top level comment chain, so nothing preceded it. The post itself was about Trump's horrific anti-trans measures and used the word genocide in the title. The top level comment (shown in my picture) states that "I'm not even sure a formal term exists yet for killing a whole group of people because of their sexuality or gender identity ... Maybe the legal definition of genocide could be expanded to include sexuality and gender identity?". Someone responds with the UN definition of genocide. I comment that the definition they've provided doesn't encompass the LGBTQ community and that's specifically why the definition needs to be updated.

Mass murder of a group of people based on their gender or sexuality isn't genocide, but is still appalling.

Yes, this is very clearly (I felt) the point!

he original top level comment says "Maybe the legal definition of genocide could be expanded to include sexuality and gender identity?" to which someone replies with the UN definition of genocide, and I point out the reason the definition needs to be expanded is specifically that the LGBTQ community isn't one of the 4 things enumerated in the definition they've just provided.

I don't know what you mean by chopped off; that's the entirety of the conversation. I've included pictures.

What you've just linked supports the point though, doesn't it? Specifically that the popular understanding has outstripped the definition and so the definition needs to be updated.

/u/serpentarian where are you

Do we know that or are you theorizing?

"In the present Convention, genocide means ANY of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

I think the point is that the LGBTQ+ community doesn't fall into one of these categories.

Most people who created something or involved with their creation to one or another extent.

After they've finished creating it? Not generally. Everything you own had a creator; how frequently do the people who created it pop by to check on it?

If God, the Creator of all people, was simply as the Deists say, there would be a real injustice in that.

That it would be unjust is not evidence against it.

Also, for the few times that miracles do actually happen, that can’t be explained by Deism.

What kind of miracles do you mean here? If they're truly incapable of being assigned to a scientific cause, surely there are numerous supernatural causes that could be suggested that aren't God right?

I'm only a few hours in, but I've been enjoying it! Especially if you enjoy rhythm games, I'd recommend it.

What does that have to do with anything? Was A$AP Rocky extradited to the US from a country he was facing charges in?

HiFi Rush!

Okay well, first of all, you haven't actually established that extradition is even an option because, again, I can't find anything that suggests he has open charges in the US or the UK.

Secondly, it would be really unusual to ask them to give over someone they're prosecuting for crimes within their country so that we can prosecute him instead. So what is the explanation exactly for why they should do that?

Do you have a source that he is currently wanted in the UK? I can't find anything stating such.

Even if he were, theoretically, can you explain why the UK would tell one of their allies that they believe they're inherently corrupt and incapable of being trusted? It seems like kind of a bad thing to do, doesn't it?

I don't think you have even a vague understanding of how extradition works. The US can't extradite him unless they are charging him with something.

Brittney Griner was a prisoner swap, not an extradition.

What are the charges against him in the US?

Is Tate wanted in the US for something?

Romania is a NATO member and US Ally. Why would the US accuse Romania of having a corrupt enough justice system that they cannot be trusted to try crimes that were committed within their country? It would be a massive foreign affairs debacle.

It sounds like you're talking about a very specific type of porn, no? This would be like disliking superhero movies and saying "Movies are stupid and boring".

I've only seen people saying they've heard stuff; is any of this actually sourced anywhere? Like, where did you see/hear this?

All of the guys involved had beef with Tyre

Is that confirmed somewhere?