Philosophy Now Forum

Yes, but earlier centuries were more barbaric not less. He 'explains' something that isn't true and you are the one with the rectally disposed cranium.

mickthinks wrote:Yes, but earlier centuries were more barbaric not less. He 'explains' something that isn't true and you are the one with the rectally disposed cranium.

Listen, dum-dum, when he says barbaric, he means the number of people killed, he's not comparing one kind of savagery to another.

I hope he means the proportion of people killed, otherwise he's as big an idiot as you, dum-dum!

mickthinks wrote:I hope he means the proportion of people killed, otherwise he's as big an idiot as you, dum-dum!

Why don't you read his article again and try to make some attempt to understand it? He's not talking about proportions, fool, which he would have stated if he were. Unfortunately, you're clueless.

The problem with drawing conclusions about trends from the absolute numbers rather than the proportion is this; the absolute number of people killed and the absolute number of people left to live in peace both rose in the 20th century. Do you think the 20th century was the most barbaric and the least barbaric century?

If a despot slaughters 30% of his people one year and then 31% of the survivors next year, then 32% the year after that, the absolute count of these deaths will be decreasing*. I guess you would say that his rule was less and less barbaric, but I'm a fairly sure Williams wouldn't. I think he would point out the increasing proportion of deaths and say "Bob, you're the fool!"

Unfortunately, you're clueless.
LOL NO U!


* assuming normal fertility rates

mickthinks wrote:The problem with drawing conclusions about trends from the absolute numbers rather than the proportion is this; the absolute number of people killed and the absolute number of people left to live in peace both rose in the 20th century. Do you think the 20th century was the most barbaric and the least barbaric century?

If a despot slaughters 30% of his people one year and then 31% of the survivors next year, then 32% the year after that, the absolute count of these deaths will be decreasing*. I guess you would say that his rule was less and less barbaric, but I'm a fairly sure Williams wouldn't. I think he would point out the increasing proportion of deaths and say "Bob, you're the fool!"

Unfortunately, you're clueless.
LOL NO U!


* assuming normal fertility rates

Again, let me try to put Williams' point in perspective. In the 20th century, the consolidation of political power over vast numbers of people by a murderous tyrant was not a practical possibility in earlier centuries.

Which takes us back to here ...

mickthinks wrote:I don't indulge in wishful thinking.
That's pretty much all you do, bob*.

If you see any specific errors of fact, please point them out to me.
That's you wishing I hadn't already done that, bob, here.

Williams says ...

The 20th century turned out to be mankind's most barbaric.

It isn't.



* Here's a good example

mickthinks wrote:Which takes us back to here ...

mickthinks wrote:I don't indulge in wishful thinking.
That's pretty much all you do, bob*.

If you see any specific errors of fact, please point them out to me.
That's you wishing I hadn't already done that, bob, here.

Williams says ...

The 20th century turned out to be mankind's most barbaric.

It isn't.



* Here's a good example

If you are challenging his statement, please provide an argument. "It isn't" is not an argument.

I don't need an argument to challenge his unsupported statement—he does. And, as I've shown you, he hasn't provided a convincing one.

mickthinks wrote:I don't need an argument to challenge his unsupported statement—he does. And, as I've shown you, he hasn't provided a convincing one.

Are you saying that Prof. Rummel's estimates totally lack validity and are part of a pipe dream? Please, get serious!

The 20th century turned out to be mankind's most barbaric. Roughly 50 million to 60 million people died in international and civil wars. As tragic as that number is, it pales in comparison with the number of people who were killed at the hands of their own government. Recently deceased Rudolph J. Rummel, professor of political science at the University of Hawaii and author of "Death by Government," estimated that since the beginning of the 20th century, governments have killed 170 million of their own citizens. Top government killers were the Soviet Union, which, between 1917 and 1987, killed 62 million of its own citizens, and the People's Republic of China, which, between 1949 and 1987, was responsible for the deaths of 35 million to 40 million of its citizens. In a distant third place were the Nazis, who murdered about 16 million Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and others deemed misfits, such as homosexuals and the mentally ill.

No, I'm saying that Professor Rummel's estimates for the 20th Century tell us nothing about the barbarity of earlier centuries* and therefore do not support Williams's contention. And I am saying that Williams must know that.

And I am saying Williams's contention is false.


*Did you not understand this when I said it before, in response to your quoting the same passage earlier in the thread, Bob?

mickthinks wrote:No, I'm saying that Professor Rummel's estimates for the 20th Century tell us nothing about the barbarity of earlier centuries* and therefore do not support Williams's contention. And I am saying that Williams must know that. And I am saying Williams's contention is false.

Williams makes it very clear why murderous regimes that have existed in places like China and the Soviet Union in the 20th century couldn't have existed earlier in the absence of concentrated political power. I think it's time for recess at ding-dong school.

Williams makes it very clear why murderous regimes that have existed in places like China and the Soviet Union couldn't have existed in previous centuries.

No he doesn't. He just assumes they didn"t.

He offers evidence of the barbarity of the 20th Century and takes it as read that we have never seen worse. He's wrong about that. We have seen much worse.


It's time for recess at your ding-dong school.
Says Bob like a True Prophet!

mickthinks wrote: It's time for recess at your ding-dong school.
Says Bob like a True Prophet!

The first sensible thing you've said.

bobevenson wrote: Again, let me try to put Williams' point in perspective. In the 20th century, the consolidation of political power over vast numbers of people by a murderous tyrant was not a practical possibility in earlier centuries.

Qin Shi Huang, Temujin and Rome disagree with you and Williams.