Excuse me the Valeyard used the exact words Genocide regarding the Doctor's destruction of the Vervoid species

Just because it was in a Dr Who script doesn't make mean it is the correct use of the word.



According to the UN -

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

It really needs to be Systematic. And usually carried out by some kind of ruling group, there is usually dehumasisation involved. There has to be "intent to destroy", not protect which is what the Dr has always had as his key motivation.

Genocide is a very specific term in international law. Its not something you can just use as a synonym of mass murder even if the victims are larely of one race.

For example the dropping of the atomic bomb during the second world war may have been immoral but it was not genocide, that is far closer to what the Dr has done, a morally questionable violent act resulting in mass death, but with the motivation of preventing death on a greater scale.

I've not seen trial of a time lord but i would be utterly shocked if what he did even comes close to the proper use of the word genocide.

The Jagaroth in City of Death

Yes. The Doctor is fictional and so are the alien invaders of Earth he defeats in a fun sci-fi programme . The comparison is offensive, IMO

By that definition the Doc has certinaly committed genocide on a muber of occasions.

The comparison is sound - if you find it offensive then that is your prerogative of course.

But how can you deplore the real life genocides yet condone the actions of a character whose actions have directly led to genocides?

I was actually answering this question, not condoning genocides.

The Doctor is fictional. That is how he differs from Milosovic.

Unless we're writing a United Nations brief on the Doctor's activities, I don't think we need worry about their definition. The word existed long before they needed to categorise it for their purposes.

You don't need to have read a law book to know what theft is. You do if you want to prosecute someone for it.

Well it was first used about 50 years before the UN definition, and its use then didn't differ much from what the UN settled on.

And while you don't need a law book to know what theft is, the law book might be worth a look if you find yourself using theft when you actually mean fraud, which is what is going on here.