• WageSlave@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sure, but you can’t ignore the other half of the definition. It is the same with wrongful incarceration: checks some of the boxes but is not really kidnapping. Still the main point is also ignored regarding the uniqueness of the situation: It is not a special case by any means.

    • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      the other half of the definition

      There is no other half of the definition, because there is no “and”. It doesn’t say to steal, carry off, and abduct by force and fraud. I don’t really see any justification to say this isn’t kidnapping, a guy walking up to you at random, unexpectedly, and then using the threat of physical or carceral force to abduct you to the front lines of a doomed war. I would say why split hairs here, but tbh I don’t even understand what hair you’re trying to split

      • WageSlave@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is rhetoric matters, and kidnapping implies abduction for the purpose of gaining claims, money or exercising terror. Lemmygrad is too stuffed with people using rhetoric that in turn allows them to react with hateful comments. That is why I want to split hairs. We all know what kidnapping means and what context it is usually used for, but you guys really want to use the term even though a better fit is just the plain truth that they are doing illegal and forceful recruiting. The reason you want to do this is to call Ukraine and the West special in this regard, which is not truthful, showing why rhetoric matters.