gatomontes99 Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 40 minutes ago, robosmith said: Nope. Bloodbath is a lot more than disastrous. it means many deaths. Very dishonest language from Trump. IF Trump continues down Hitler's path, many deaths are a likely result. And I believe he is mean enough to do that. He obviously doesn't care about anyone but himself. You are clownin. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 36 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: Yes, in the literal sense, but it is also commonly used as an expression to mean disastrous. He was talking about the auto industry not the streets of America right? So, most people could figure out that he wasn't talking about a literal bloodbath. So when Democrats made the extreme claim that he was calling for an actual bloodbath they only discredited themselves. If this is the truth, I would say the Democrats did a poor job of opposing him. Even if you believe incredibly nefarious things about someone and you think you are right, there is a danger in making grave accusations against them. There is a danger in prosecuting someone of a heinous crime when you can't present enough evidence to get a conviction. It's not "common" for disaster. I never hear people using "bloodbath" to describe anything less than many deaths like maybe a plane crash. Quote
CdnFox Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 2 hours ago, Radiorum said: Unless you are burned at the stake for being a heretic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics My family was mostly shot and murdered by people who believed in the 'science' of communism and it's 'rational' conclusions during the Russian revolution. Only a handful escaped. They weren't even nobility or anything. Kinda goes both ways. There's crazy people who will use whatever system or excuse is handy to commit bad acts. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
CouchPotato Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 9 minutes ago, robosmith said: It's not "common" for disaster. I never hear people using "bloodbath" to describe anything less than many deaths like maybe a plane crash. bloodbath noun 1 : a great slaughter 2 a : a notably fierce, violent, or destructive contest or struggle the campaign has become a bloodbath b : a major economic disaster a market bloodbath https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bloodbath 1 Quote
Radiorum Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 4 minutes ago, CdnFox said: My family was mostly shot and murdered by people who believed in the 'science' of communism and it's 'rational' conclusions during the Russian revolution. Only a handful escaped. They weren't even nobility or anything. Kinda goes both ways. There's crazy people who will use whatever system or excuse is handy to commit bad acts. I'm sorry for what happened to your family, but that had nothing to do with science. Quote
Deluge Posted March 6 Author Report Posted March 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, Barquentine said: 1. Who decides who "real citizens" are? And how are they going to "forcibly protect the country"? 2. Concentration camps, gas chambers? 3. And the first part of your sentence is is a new depth of stupid! 1. Common sense decides, comrade. If you're for border security, you're a real citizen. If you're for illegal immigration, you're a fraud. See how it works? 2. Forcibly protect the country means citizens defending themselves from unhinged federal enforcement offices like Biden's FBI or the IRS before Trump got to it. 3. Talk about. Sometimes it's good for leftoids to just talk things out. Edited March 6 by Deluge Quote
CouchPotato Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, Barquentine said: Concentration camps, gas chambers? Are we talking about immigration? Some countries have very strict immigration laws. It's not easy to become a Japanese citizen or a Korean citizen. Are they putting people in concentration camps and gas chambers? I mean I find it hard to believe you can't distinguish between people not wanting millions of illegal immigrants crossing their borders unchecked and Nazism. Edited March 6 by CouchPotato Quote
CouchPotato Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 17 minutes ago, Radiorum said: I'm sorry for what happened to your family, but that had nothing to do with science. But he didn't say it did. He said people can use rationalism as an excuse for atrocious acts just as easily as religion or xenophobia or whatever. Quote
Radiorum Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 2 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: He said people can use rationalism as an excuse for atrocious acts just as easily as religion or xenophobia or whatever. Who is claiming the the atrocities of Stalin were rational? Quote
CouchPotato Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 2 minutes ago, Radiorum said: Who is claiming the the atrocities of Stalin were rational? Stalin and his supporters would have. Do you think he did these things because he thought they were unrational? Quote
Radiorum Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 Just now, CouchPotato said: Stalin and his supporters would have. Do you think he did these things because he thought they were unrational? I don't think the criminal is in the best place to judge his crimes. 1 minute ago, CouchPotato said: unrational? irrational 1 Quote
CouchPotato Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Radiorum said: irrational Thanks for the correction. I've been really bad this week. Quote I don't think the criminal is in the best place to judge his crimes. But that is irrelevant. You and I do not believe what Stalin did was rational. But these atrocities were to some. The persecution of Christians was necessary because they are dangerous to their version of a rational society. There is always a chance they can compel others to oppose the system. That may not be your rationale, but that's not the point. You can use anything as an excuse for violence. Even reason. Or religion. I would argue that many of the atrocities of the Church against heretics were not sanctioned by God and that it was an improper application of the Christian faith, the same way you might argue that the communists idea of what was rational was not really rational. Edited March 6 by CouchPotato Quote
Radiorum Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 16 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: Thanks for the correction. I've been really bad this week. But that is irrelevant. You and I do not believe what Stalin did was rational. But these atrocities were to some. The persecution of Christians was necessary because they are dangerous to their version of a rational society. There is always a chance they can compel others to oppose the system. That may not be your rationale, but that's not the point. You can use anything as an excuse for violence. Even reason. Or religion. I would argue that many of the atrocities of the Church against heretics were not sanctioned by God and that it was an improper application of the Christian faith, the same way you might argue that the communists idea of what was rational was not really rational. Sorry, using Stalin as an argument against science and for religion is ludicrous. Quote
CouchPotato Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Radiorum said: Sorry, using Stalin as an argument against science and for religion is ludicrous. When did I do that? All I said was people can pervert all kinds of things to justify atrocities. And that seems to be what CdnFox was saying as well. I never argued against science or religion. Edited March 6 by CouchPotato Quote
Radiorum Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 5 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: All I said was people can pervert all kinds of things to justify atrocities. And that seems to be what CdnFox was saying as well. I never argued against science or religion. Sorry, you seemed to be agreeing with the OP. Quote
CouchPotato Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 minute ago, Radiorum said: Sorry, you seemed to be agreeing with the OP. Well, I do agree with the OP to be clear, in the sense that I do believe in God, and I do believe that God is a necessary to the foundation of a good society. I don't know to what extent the founders were Christians or deists. I mean I've seen a lot of evidence that some of them were indeed deists. But that's not what I was arguing here. Quote
Barquentine Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 hour ago, Deluge said: If you're for border security, you're a real citizen. So citizens aren't citizens if you disagree with them? Remember, you're just talking about citizens, not immigrants. Who granted you this great power? 1 hour ago, Deluge said: Forcibly protect the country means citizens defending themselves from unhinged federal enforcement offices like Biden's FBI or the IRS before Trump got to it. More stupidity. Did Trump teach you that? Quote
CdnFox Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 hour ago, Radiorum said: I'm sorry for what happened to your family, but that had nothing to do with science. Sure it does. Marx presented his works in that light. Engles talked about it that way too. They considered it the logical and reasoned response having studied the social science of the issues. Carl marks also called religion the opiate of the masses. he was not fond of religion Hitler wasn't religious, he believed in science and was fascinated by it. Then there was eugenics. I could go on. the fact is that just as many people have twisted 'reason' and 'science' to justify horrible actions as religion. The common denominator there is people. At the end of the day tho for societies to function and for countries to continue to exist and prosper there has to be a core set of values that all agree on fundimentally whether they're religious based principles or otherwise. North america was based on Judea-christian principles, yet it was also grounded in the separation of church and state. You can have religious principles as the bedrock of your country without having a theocracy after all. "thou shall not steal" is not a bad principle even if you're not religious. 4 minutes ago, Barquentine said: So citizens aren't citizens if you disagree with them? Remember, you're just talking about citizens, not immigrants. Who granted you this great power? More stupidity. Did Trump teach you that? I'm not seeing an awful lot of rebuttals there. It's all fine and dandy just simply point your finger with a shaking hand and cry "U RONG!!" but if you genuinely think he's wrong shouldn't you be able to make that case? Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Barquentine Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 31 minutes ago, CdnFox said: I'm not seeing an awful lot of rebuttals there. It's all fine and dandy just simply point your finger with a shaking hand and cry "U RONG!!" but if you genuinely think he's wrong shouldn't you be able to make that case? So do you think there are 2 classes of citizens, the ones he considers real and the other less worthy ones? "Real citizens". Those are his words. Quote
WestCanMan Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 11 hours ago, Deluge said: A key point to remember here is that these cultists believe that "science and reason should replace religion as the foundation of a modern society." of course, this is a stupid idea and has no place in a Christian nation like the US, but there are still a lot of people (marxist heathens) who believe this. As an Atheist myself (I give us a capital A just because all the religions and countrymen get one), I'm not a real "RAH RAH RELIGION!" kind of guy, but I do respect Christian values and I support Christianity because I recognize that Christian values got us these countries which I admire. That being said, I also respect Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, and basically all other religions which don't influence their followers' behaviour in a negative manner. I feel like there are a lot of religions and beliefs that are simpatico with Christianity in general, but islam isn't one of them. I think that not having Christianity as a guiding light would be a mistake, and I think that people's disrespect of Christianity just shows that they're not really Canadian/American at heart. Edited March 6 by WestCanMan Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
WestCanMan Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 45 minutes ago, Barquentine said: So citizens aren't citizens if you disagree with them? Remember, you're just talking about citizens, not immigrants. People with passports are citizens, but people who don't respect the border and don't share Cdn/American values are voluntarily not Cdns/'Muricans anyways, so they're not offended to be viewed as 'others'. I can guarantee you that they consider themselves to be first and foremost _____s who just live within that geographical area. If people don't want to be Canadian, and respect Cdn values and traditions, I really don't think that they should be allowed to come live here. And people who hate Cdn values and traditions have a multitude of other options to choose from if they want to leave. 1 Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
robosmith Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 4 hours ago, CouchPotato said: bloodbath noun 1 : a great slaughter 2 a : a notably fierce, violent, or destructive contest or struggle the campaign has become a bloodbath b : a major economic disaster a market bloodbath https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bloodbath Market meltdowns were referred to a bloodbath because many people took their own lives when the market crash was a prelude to the great depression. You're welcome. Quote
CouchPotato Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 Just now, robosmith said: Market meltdowns were referred to a bloodbath because many people took their own lives when the market crash was a prelude to the great depression. You're welcome. Perhaps that is how the term originated robosmith, but that does not mean it is always used to describe mass death. Quote
robosmith Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 Just now, CouchPotato said: Perhaps that is how the term originated robosmith, but that does not mean it is always used to describe mass death. It is the TRADITION and ORIGINATION of the usage. Quote
CouchPotato Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 9 minutes ago, robosmith said: It is the TRADITION and ORIGINATION of the usage. Right, but the origin of the usage is not always the common usage. So for instance in the definition I provided from Merriam Webster it says bloodbath can be used to describe an economic disaster. It does not say that it has to be an economic disaster marked by mass death, simply an economic disaster. This is an idiomatic meaning the term has taken on. Oh, and... you are welcome. Edited March 6 by CouchPotato Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.