Thread:CakeBuu/@comment-31126743-20190808131010/@comment-39840927-20190908114606

Semantics:

the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.

"Presupposition and Implication"

"His [Hitler's] intentions were to unite his country"

"No-one mentioned him wanting to save his country"

My friend, clearly you don't know a thing about the event known as World War 1, in which Germany lost the war and thus lost a lot of their people, technology and power. As such, Hitler rose, through political avenues, to power and became a dictator. He used a Scapegoat (The Jews, Minorities, etc.) to not ONLY make a dominant race, but also bring his country together against what was perceived as a common enemy that was in the way of their (Germany's) return to power.

So, after WWI, he wanted to unite his country once more against not only a common enemy, but, in order to gain power, other countries as well.

How is "Uniting his Country" not equivalent to "Saving his Country"?

If he didn't unite it, then would that not, by IMPLICATION, mean that it would remain broken, have low morale and would not be able to regain power? The answer is yes, you absolute donut.

The purpose of uniting his country may have been to "Go to war and make a Dominant Race", but do you think he would have been able to have done that without UNITING HIS COUNTRY, AKA SAVING IT, FROM BEING BROKEN MORALLY?

I mean, seriously dude, World War I happened. After their defeat, Germany wasn't exactly fine and dandy, they needed saving from their destroyed state of being, which Hitler did by Uniting his people in order to gain power (through war and by making a Scapegoat/Common enemy in his own land).

Ironic that you think you can disrespect me on not knowing what semantics are when you had to define what Unite meant.

Also, Deity may have seen you as justifying what Hitler did (As a political movement/motivation) because you said:

"Much like Mussolini, he took advantage of the hard times the country was going through and seized power. Much like Mussolini, the people were desperate for a change so they're willing to give any answer a shot, which is why people like Mussolini got into power.

Hitler's idea that Germans were better than Jews is similar to Trump's idea of "we need a wall cause illegal americans are why you're doing poorly in life." Trump got elected the same way Hitler rose to power, he gave the people a common enemy. Which is why a lot of experts compare Trump to Hitler. "

You compared Hitler to Trump, saying that Trump's idea that a broken Immigration System that allows Illegal Immigrants is some how equal to the idea that you need to kill Jews in order to obtain the perfect race. "Common Enemy" is not a good enough reason to compare the idea that Hitler wanting to KILL THE JEWS and Trump wanting to DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are the same thing.

Through, again, the word that curses you and is the bane of your existence, semantics, it's easy to see how what you said IMPLIES you justifying Hitler's actions.

Also, in case you're still confused like the donut you are:

"Justify - show or prove to be right or reasonable."

"Hitler's idea that Germans were better than Jews is similar to Trump's idea of "We need a wall (be)cause illegal (americans) immigrants are why you're doing (poorly in life)"

PS: Sorry if you're insulted by me calling you a Donut, maybe you should stop being a Donut and then I won't call you a Donut, you Mango