Originally posted by robbie carrobieTen percent of the world's population (less if you correct for population growth in the interbellum, which was high) is not remarkable by historical standards. As I've already pointed out, Tamerlane's wars and conquests killed about 5% of the world's population at that time, and that was a local conflict restricted mainly to Central Asia. During the same period, many more conflicts were raging, for instance the Hundred Years' War. So no, I don't agree with the assessment that the 20th Century was "the most murderous in recorded history" by any reasonable standard.
yeah right, maybe we rename the first world war, the seventh world war according to KazetNagorra
[b]The 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history. The total number of deaths caused by or associated with its wars has been estimated at 187m, the equivalent of more than 10% of the world's population in 1913. Taken as having begun in ...[text shortened]... ation/2002/feb/23/artsandhumanities.highereducation
Making your statement demonstrably false.[/b]
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNow you are simply in denial and have gone the way of all aesthetic saplings and have started to slobber and drool and attempt to negate the findings with speculation, conjecture, figures based on tenuous estimates and a whole series of other unscientific methods. Its shameful to see you reduced to this rather than accept the simple reality, 'The 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history'. Oh well.
Ten percent of the world's population (less if you correct for population growth in the interbellum, which was high) is not remarkable by historical standards. As I've already pointed out, Tamerlane's wars and conquests killed about 5% of the world's population at that time, and that was a local conflict restricted mainly to Central Asia. During the sam ...[text shortened]... t that the 20th Century was "the most murderous in recorded history" by any reasonable standard.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI can always tell when you've lost an argument because you invariably use the words "slobber and drool".
Now you are simply in denial and have gone the way of all aesthetic saplings and have started to slobber and drool and attempt to negate the findings with speculation, conjecture, figures based on tenuous estimates and a whole series of other unscientific methods. Its shameful to see you reduced to this rather than accept the simple reality, 'The 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history'. Oh well.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobert, can you explain you have have 'clearly' differentiated between the two, very different, uses of the Greek word 'oikoumenē'?
Now you are simply in denial and have gone the way of all aesthetic saplings and have started to slobber and drool and attempt to negate the findings with speculation, conjecture, figures based on tenuous estimates and a whole series of other unscientific methods. Its shameful to see you reduced to this rather than accept the simple reality, 'The 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history'. Oh well.
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobsorry that doesn't make sense, are you saying,
Robert, can you explain you have have 'clearly' differentiated between the two, very different, uses of the Greek word 'oikoumenē'?
can you explain [why] you have have 'clearly' differentiated between the two.
No sorry I cannot explain it. I am done here, the aesthetic saplings are denying all kinds of scientific and empirical evidence and substituting conjecture, speculation and other nefarious schemes.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou're right, that clearly makes no sense. Let me try again -
sorry that doesn't make sense, are you saying,
can you explain [why] you have have 'clearly' differentiated between the two.
No sorry I cannot explain it. I am done here, the aesthetic saplings are denying all kinds of scientific and empirical evidence and substituting conjecture, speculation and other nefarious schemes.
Robert, can you explain how you have 'clearly' differentiated between the two, very different, uses of the Greek word 'oikoumenē'?
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo i dont think I make reference to the word, spit it out fatboy, what is it that you are trying to say?
You're right, that clearly makes no sense. Let me try again -
Robert, can you explain how you have 'clearly' differentiated between the two, very different, uses of the Greek word 'oikoumenē'?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI assume that Proper Knob is referring to his post, the thirteenth on page 26, where he quotes Luke 2:1 and to your post, the fifth on page 16, where you quote Matthew 24:7.
No i dont think I make reference to the word, spit it out fatboy, what is it that you are trying to say?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtso what about it?
I assume that Proper Knob is referring to his post, the thirteenth on page 26, where he quotes Luke 2:1 and to your post, the fifth on page 16, where you quote Matthew 24:7.
oikoumené: the inhabited earth
Original Word: οἰκουμένη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: oikoumené
Phonetic Spelling: (oy-kou-men'-ay)
Short Definition: the inhabited (Roman) world
Definition: (properly: the land that is being inhabited, the land in a state of habitation), the inhabited world, that is, the Roman world, for all outside it was regarded as of no account.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, the reason that I don't accept the assessment that "the 20th Century was the most murderous in history" is that it is not accurate, no matter how much you wish it to be so. There have been fewer and fewer wars and famine over the last couple of centuries, not more.
Now you are simply in denial and have gone the way of all aesthetic saplings and have started to slobber and drool and attempt to negate the findings with speculation, conjecture, figures based on tenuous estimates and a whole series of other unscientific methods. Its shameful to see you reduced to this rather than accept the simple reality, 'The 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history'. Oh well.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat century do you suppose was worse than the 20th in terms of murder. I assume by murder you are meaning war deaths and the killing of innocent civilians by their own governments or otherwise?
Well, the reason that I don't accept the assessment that "the 20th Century was the most murderous in history" is that it is not accurate, no matter how much you wish it to be so. There have been fewer and fewer wars and famine over the last couple of centuries, not more.
Originally posted by yoctobyteThe 19th Century, for instance. The Great War (later named WW1) was not a sudden upheaval of a peaceful time where hobbits lived peacefully in the shire - it was merely a continuation of the countless wars that were fought before it - a trend that was, at least in most of the industrialized world, halted after WW2.
What century do you suppose was worse than the 20th in terms of murder. I assume by murder you are meaning war deaths and the killing of innocent civilians by their own governments or otherwise?
For inspiration, here is a list of wars in the 19th Century - which includes merely the ones involving the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_Kingdom#United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_.281801.E2.80.931922.29
- Joined
- 23 Nov 09
- Moves
- 146496
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPerhaps you all should decide first whether you're talking about absolute or relative numbers before deciding which century was the most murderous one?
The 19th Century, for instance. The Great War (later named WW1) was not a sudden upheaval of a peaceful time where hobbits lived peacefully in the shire - it was merely a continuation of the countless wars that were fought before it - a trend that was, at least in most of the industrialized world, halted after WW2.
For inspiration, here is a list of ...[text shortened]... involving_the_United_Kingdom#United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_.281801.E2.80.931922.29