Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rightwingcrazy

I’m trying to find support for this concept, but I can’t find any real definition of “blood libel” that isn’t tied to false accusations that jews were killing children and using their blood.

I don’t see any real evidence of this “modern usage” that others have called out, nor do I see a particularly good parallel between “blood libel” and what the left has been doing to us.

They are accusing us of inciting violence, not of killing people to use them for religious or political purposes. It’s just a stretch; and since we aren’t saying the left is looking to have us put to death, that aspect of “blood libel” doesn’t exist either.


241 posted on 01/12/2011 8:05:23 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT

Question

Define the word “Blood” and “Libel”.


246 posted on 01/12/2011 8:07:35 AM PST by se_ohio_young_conservative (Palin or 3rd party... no exceptions !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“They are accusing us of inciting violence, not of killing people to use them for religious or political purposes. It’s just a stretch; and since we aren’t saying the left is looking to have us put to death, that aspect of “blood libel” doesn’t exist either.”

I sympathize with what you’re saying, but I can also see Palin’s dilemma in labeling the Left’s actions. If she had simply written “libel”, the likely response would have been snarky comments about her ignorance of libel laws. Really, she shouldn’t have to walk on eggshells with her choice of words. Her point was clear, especially the context within which it was written.


254 posted on 01/12/2011 8:14:13 AM PST by rightwingcrazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Hey Charles...you can find any support for this usage for "blood libel" because there isn't any...Palin has tried to "split the meaning." and create her own version of the phrase. She uses the part of the definition that includes false and sensational allegations. Instead of thinking of it in terms of "human sacrifices", which is the crux of the "blood" part of the term, she is turning it to mean "murder." Then, of course, she ignores the harshest part of the phrase, which is the cannibalism component, instead implying that the libel is she is somehow complicit in the murder.

It's awkwardly handled, but may be effective to those who aren't familiar with the real usage of the phrase...magritte
273 posted on 01/12/2011 8:26:45 AM PST by magritte ("There are moments, Jeeves, when one asks oneself "Do trousers matter?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson