Reply With QuoteNo, he just misspoke.Originally Posted by Sir C
Looked to me like he was exaggerating. For effect.
No, he just misspoke.
Hmmm - I was thinking of the starvation of large numbers of his own people angle which doesn't feel like murderous or bloodthirsty. Or really genocidal, I suppose. Perhaps 'deranged' would have been better.
AWIMB is just one big learning centre, isn't it?
What about Vlad the Impaler? Clearly not genocidal, but 'bloodthirsty' doesn't really cut it for old Vlad.
Perhaps 'extremely bloodthirsty'.
And doesn't the term also make an issue of exactly whom one kills, rather the mere fact of the killing itself?Yes, whilst he is clearly a bit of a murdering type, describing him as 'genocidal' is a bit hyperbolic.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
I have no idea of his mental state, tbh, so 'deranged' won't do. Perhaps 'careless'?Hmmm - I was thinking of the starvation of large numbers of his own people angle which doesn't feel like murderous or bloodthirsty. Or really genocidal, I suppose. Perhaps 'deranged' would have been better.
AWIMB is just one big learning centre, isn't it?
I'm less down with these word thingys than you and Burney. Does it become genocidal only if you are deliberately targeting a certain type of people with the intention of eradicating them? So the Holocaust was clearly genocidal but Stalin starving millions of people as part of his political/social/economic policies was not?
I was just thinking that. "Very careless indeed", or "could hardly be more careless".
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Yes, I would say so. You'd need to check a dictionary for the absolute truth of the matter, I suppose.I'm less down with these word thingys than you and Burney. Does it become genocidal only if you are deliberately targeting a certain type of people with the intention of eradicating them? So the Holocaust was clearly genocidal but Stalin starving millions of people as part of his political/social/economic policies was not?
Yes. But even then it's not necessarily genocide. I remember once having a long and dull argument with j because he accused the US of genocide by dropping atom bombs on Johnny Japanese. In that instance, the fact that the overwhelming majority of victims were hissing nips didn't make it genocide because the enemy's ethnicity was irrelevant to his status as a military foe who needed to be defeated by any means necessary.
Posting Permissions
