It's possible to disagree with a claim or an opinion. Genghis Kahn was not an opinion or a claim.
Please present an argument.....
"....he ruled because he'd kill anyone who disagreed...." This statement is either incomplete or meaningless. Explain what you mean..
What aren't you getting? Ghengis Kahn ruled by killing anyone who opposed him, not " because the majority of a population has been taught to believe, there is a right to wield such power over real people."
His power existed because he had the strength and skills to force everyone to follow his rule.
"...His power existed because he had the strength and skills to force everyone to follow his rule...."
Surely you're not trying to say that Genghis Kahn was just a thug that went around single-handedly beating people up and killing them just because they opposed his claim that he had a right to "rule" them.
Are you suggesting that maybe 1/2 dozen guys that opposed him couldn't just have got together and killed him before he caused any more trouble?
Did he rule over 1000's of people because they were all afraid of him? He's only one guy, after all. You can't really expect anyone to believe that, surely?
(There wasn't a "reply" button below your previous comment so I'm afraid I had to put my comment here).
It's possible to disagree with a claim or an opinion. Genghis Kahn was not an opinion or a claim.
Please present an argument.....
"....he ruled because he'd kill anyone who disagreed...." This statement is either incomplete or meaningless. Explain what you mean..
What aren't you getting? Ghengis Kahn ruled by killing anyone who opposed him, not " because the majority of a population has been taught to believe, there is a right to wield such power over real people."
His power existed because he had the strength and skills to force everyone to follow his rule.
"...His power existed because he had the strength and skills to force everyone to follow his rule...."
Surely you're not trying to say that Genghis Kahn was just a thug that went around single-handedly beating people up and killing them just because they opposed his claim that he had a right to "rule" them.
Are you suggesting that maybe 1/2 dozen guys that opposed him couldn't just have got together and killed him before he caused any more trouble?
Did he rule over 1000's of people because they were all afraid of him? He's only one guy, after all. You can't really expect anyone to believe that, surely?
(There wasn't a "reply" button below your previous comment so I'm afraid I had to put my comment here).