responding to common objections to bible part 4

[HoreTore]

Just admit that it was genocide, and then dismiss it as irrelevant, because as HoreTore said, it is an UN definition, and applying moral obligations in retrospect is hardly fair and even less productive. Then proceed to say that the UN's Universal Civil Rights Codex is the result of a humanist ideology which gained alot of popularity after the Revolutions, but popularity is hardly a proper argument to prefer one ideology over the other.

That line of argument would at least be legitimate, and it also requires very little education or knowledge to make.

My main concern here is the unintelligent misuse of terms. If TR simply decides to argue that what happened wasn't "a massacre"(or whatever) instead of arguing that it wasn't a genocide, he'd have at least half a leg to stand on.

In that event I wouldn't have any interest in commenting in the thread either, as I have very little interest in debating morals with someone obsessed with punishment and believes debt-slavery to be morally acceptable....