You're trying to use the dictionary as Scripture.
The reason there is so much debate today on a precise definition for "genocide" is that the word has a specific legal meaning that can trigger specific litigation. Lawyers need to do that to legitimize their arguments, just as you are insisting on it to authenticate yours.
At one time, slavery was OK in the USA as long as it was inflicted on and limited to specific classes and races of people, you know, those subhuman unpeople from Africa. Even the Romans had more honesty than that. Their society was completely egalitarian, ANYONE could be a slave.
Your 'definition' allows us to cavalierly accept all manner of brutal oppression and economic exploitation because it doesn't meet a set of criteria you happen to feel comfortable with, and that leaves every crooked gangster businessman conveniently off the hook.
Current Events » in reply to Insisting words don’t have definitions
Words may have definitions, but why should I accept yours?
The whole thread (34 posts)
- Absolutely brilliant on the immigration issue
- I've often wondered why Biden didn't stress this issue.
- The other thing
- The GOP has always been the 'Party of Business'.
- Words have meaning
- The jobs Americans are not willing to do.
- The GOP has always been the 'Party of Business'.
- What I found the most effective
- The other thing
- And here's the new ad
- I've often wondered why Biden didn't stress this issue.