Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

The Geneva convention specifically mentions giving food unworthy of human consumption to the local populace as cruel and unusual punishment and therefore a war crime. Doomblade187 is absolutely right

[Naturegirl1999]

If circus peanuts are unfit for human consumption, why are they sold to humans as edible?

[Dunamisdeos]

There are countries that did not sign it. There are others that did not ratify it. Russia and Japan, respectively.

The convention is still the standard for how those things are reacted to. For instance, Syria signed but did not ratify the convention. We still blew them the hell up a couple years back in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons.

So yeah if we wanted to we could point to the Geneva Convention as a standard and act upon it based on the idea that a government force feeding circus peanuts to a prisoner is a violation of human rights.

Also whatever Taco Bell is allowed to exist. They don't serve food.

[Doomblade187]

EXCUSE ME.

Taco Bell serves real food, and it is real good.

[Naturegirl1999]

I don’t think serving circus peanuts is a crime, though. My question was trying to make the point that if it is edible and not poisonous, it is fit for human consumption, so circus peanuts and Taco Bell are not violating the Geneva Convention

[ChairmanPoo]

Its not a matter of it being poisonous per se, it's the psychological torture inflicted.

Plus we dont know the effects they had on his guts. Those peanuts might well be poison

[Yoink]

Let's just ban the Geneva convention already. What a fuckin' joke.

I'm still pretty drunk right now but I would totally agree with this sentiment whilst sober, so whatever.

[Eschar]

I don’t think serving circus peanuts is a crime, though. My question was trying to make the point that if it is edible and not poisonous, it is fit for human consumption, so circus peanuts and Taco Bell are not violating the Geneva Convention

But you can commit war crimes with something not intended for that purpose, can you not?

[Naturegirl1999]

You could, but I don’t think feeding peanuts to people is a violation of human rights

[Eschar]

1. Actual sad/worrying thing: I am not an incel, but it seems I do share many traits with "nice guys"; i.e. the nasty r/nice guys type.
2. I realized this a long time ago, but didn't have a name for it, and didn't try to change it ... nor do I really know how to change it now either.

3. It's almost certainly linked to a general issue with low empathy as well, which I'm also not sure how to resolve.

4.The thing is I know that all these are issues and not okay. I could explain to you perfectly well why each of these things aren't normal. If someone asked me what I believed about each of these topics, I'd hold to the position that these stances (incel-dom, niceguy-ism) on the topics are wrong. But that doesn't help me in actually resolving them.

Again: pointers?

[Lord Shonus]

Do countries IRL even follow it? I’m not sure if they do or not, It would be nice if they did, but I don’t think all of them do.

The Geneva (regulating treatment of civilians, prisoners of war, and non-combat personnel such as chaplains and medics) and Hague (regulating which weapons are permissible in what contexts) conventions are very much followed IRL. Where things get messy is dealing with insurgents, terrorists, and non-state combatants - these are not explicitly protected by the Conventions, and most countries have a... less than stellar record of humane treatment of such persons. There is, of course, a great deal of misconception on what the Conventions actually cover, sometimes making their way into actual military training, but those tend to be more strict than the actual text, not less.


The purpose of the Conventions is that certain tactics (bombing hospitals, strafing refugee columns, poisoning water supplies, permitting no prisoners) and weapons (poison gas, blinding lasers, small explosive bullets, etc.) will give a significant advantage if one side is using them, but the advantage will cancel out completely if all sides are doing so. Thus, the only thing they do is make war much nastier for everybody without changing the outcome of the war even slightly. Thus, almost everyone agreed to a set of "we won't do this as long as you don't" treaties to keep the nastiness down.

[Naturegirl1999]

Do countries IRL even follow it? I’m not sure if they do or not, It would be nice if they did, but I don’t think all of them do.

The Geneva (regulating treatment of civilians, prisoners of war, and non-combat personnel such as chaplains and medics) and Hague (regulating which weapons are permissible in what contexts) conventions are very much followed IRL. Where things get messy is dealing with insurgents, terrorists, and non-state combatants - these are not explicitly protected by the Conventions, and most countries have a... less than stellar record of humane treatment of such persons. There is, of course, a great deal of misconception on what the Conventions actually cover, sometimes making their way into actual military training, but those tend to be more strict than the actual text, not less.


The purpose of the Conventions is that certain tactics (bombing hospitals, strafing refugee columns, poisoning water supplies, permitting no prisoners) and weapons (poison gas, blinding lasers, small explosive bullets, etc.) will give a significant advantage if one side is using them, but the advantage will cancel out completely if all sides are doing so. Thus, the only thing they do is make war much nastier for everybody without changing the outcome of the war even slightly. Thus, almost everyone agreed to a set of "we won't do this as long as you don't" treaties to keep the nastiness down.

Thank you for the information

[Doomblade187]

1. Actual sad/worrying thing: I am not an incel, but it seems I do share many traits with "nice guys"; i.e. the nasty r/nice guys type.
2. I realized this a long time ago, but didn't have a name for it, and didn't try to change it ... nor do I really know how to change it now either.

3. It's almost certainly linked to a general issue with low empathy as well, which I'm also not sure how to resolve.

4.The thing is I know that all these are issues and not okay. I could explain to you perfectly well why each of these things aren't normal. If someone asked me what I believed about each of these topics, I'd hold to the position that these stances (incel-dom, niceguy-ism) on the topics are wrong. But that doesn't help me in actually resolving them.

Again: pointers?

Well, I personally don't know the exact issues or the resolution, but as a person who struggles with empathy sometimes, I just imagine myself being treated that way and then adjust my behavior, or use what I know about someone to adapt my behavior to be acceptable to them, very conciously. Inact different around different people, some people get more consideration than others.

[heydude6]

1. Actual sad/worrying thing: I am not an incel, but it seems I do share many traits with "nice guys"; i.e. the nasty r/nice guys type.
2. I realized this a long time ago, but didn't have a name for it, and didn't try to change it ... nor do I really know how to change it now either.

3. It's almost certainly linked to a general issue with low empathy as well, which I'm also not sure how to resolve.

4.The thing is I know that all these are issues and not okay. I could explain to you perfectly well why each of these things aren't normal. If someone asked me what I believed about each of these topics, I'd hold to the position that these stances (incel-dom, niceguy-ism) on the topics are wrong. But that doesn't help me in actually resolving them.

Again: pointers?

If you want advice for that, you need to be more specific. What kind of "nice guy" are you? Example:

When you act "nice" to women and they don't end up liking you, do you:

A) accept it and move on
B) Silently resent them for not appreciating you
C) Send them angry texts about how they're dumb bitches who don't know what they're  missing

The distinction isn't just an issue of gauging severity. The kind of nice guy who answers C is usually quite different from the nice guy that answers B. Sometimes specific women really are bitches and in that case answering A would be the wrong choice since that would make you a doormat and also the kind of person who is vulnerable to entering abusive relationships. As a man, you've gotta balance treating others with respect with treating yourself with respect (among other things).

Please talk more about this, actually. I've been dealing with these kinds of issues for many years so I'm sure I've got a few useful tips.

[JoshuaFH]

1. Actual sad/worrying thing: I am not an incel, but it seems I do share many traits with "nice guys"; i.e. the nasty r/nice guys type.
2. I realized this a long time ago, but didn't have a name for it, and didn't try to change it ... nor do I really know how to change it now either.

3. It's almost certainly linked to a general issue with low empathy as well, which I'm also not sure how to resolve.

4.The thing is I know that all these are issues and not okay. I could explain to you perfectly well why each of these things aren't normal. If someone asked me what I believed about each of these topics, I'd hold to the position that these stances (incel-dom, niceguy-ism) on the topics are wrong. But that doesn't help me in actually resolving them.

Again: pointers?

Can I recommend the book "No More Mr. Nice Guy" by Robert Glover? I honestly really love it.