This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 49%. (I'm a bot)
> GENEVA, Aug 24 - The top U.N. human rights official said on Tuesday that she had received credible reports of serious violations committed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, including summary executions of civilians and restrictions on women and on protests against their rule.
> Michelle Bachelet gave no details of executions in her speech to the Human Rights Council, but urged the Geneva forum to set up a mechanism to closely monitor Taliban actions.
> The Taliban treatment of women which would be "a fundamental red line", she said.
> "Afghanistan's diverse ethnic and religious minorities are also at risk of violence and repression, given previous patterns of serious violations under Taliban rule and reports of killings and targeted attacks in recent months," she said.
> Nasir Ahmad Andisha, a senior Afghan diplomat from the deposed government, called for accountability for Taliban actions, describing an "Uncertain and dire" situation where millions of people fear for their lives.
> Independent U.N. human rights experts, in a joint statement, said that many people were in hiding fearing reprisals as "The Taliban continues to search homes door-to-door".
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Taliban^#1 report^#2 human^#3 rights^#4 women^#5
Post found in /r/worldnews.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
I'm currently learning about different fallacies and I wanted to better my understanding of genetic fallacies.
Like, suppose a guy who's been convicted of child molestation thrice and has an extensive history of owning CP is going to be giving a speech to a city council on his reasons as to why there should be a local childcare/daycare place and children's playground built near his house.
If someone tells him, "You're a child molester and a sick person, why should we listen to you? We're not gonna accept those reasons at all."
Is that really committing a genetic fallacy? Isn't it normal to question people's character and motivations when they say something? Especially in this case of a child molester wanting a childcare place being built near his house.
EDIT: I wanted to change the title to "Is there a difference between committing a genetic fallacy and dismissing a person *because* of their credibility?" Also, I don't know why it's showing a "SPOILER" tag on the post, my apologies everyone.
