• WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.

    Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven’t bitten that bullet.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s not a strawman - it’s a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don’t belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don’t understand, and putting forward arguments you don’t believe.

      If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you’ve stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?

    • Flumsy@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it

      Ummm… my previos comments are not edited and also, I didnt post a link to anything… I dont know what definition you are talking about (?) Maybe the one on the comment before (it didint change though)