Political Crossfire Forums

[Enoch]

straw man wrote: If I say, "I'm going to the bank to make a deposit into my checking account", are you going to say, "that's impossible. There's no way to increase your checking balance by going to a clump or mass of earth or slope beside a river. It can ONLY be a bank if it is a clump of earth or slope."

Maybe you could say:

"In order for it to be an "account" it HAS to be an oral or written summary of an event that took place. How can you make a deposit into that? That doesn't even make sense."

I mean I understand perfectly clear what the first definition for murder is and it's legal ramifications. What I DON'T understand is why I'm not allowed to use definition #2 instead.

Ek0nomik, do you have a link to where you got stumped on this? Because, words are symbolic representations of the meanings associated with them by society and it's laws. Legally and societally speaking, murder indicates illegality. Legally and societally speaking, killing means ending a life with or without sanction of law.

Furthermore, the words "bank" and "account" are socially accepted symbolic representations with multiple meanings that are mutally agreed upon by society.

[straw man]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Thats also a big issue with the whole debate, people use their own definition of a word, which in a lot of cases like 'life' can mean quite a number of different things.

I'm not making up a defintion. I'm using an existing and official definition. This isn't "my own" definition. Plus we are not in a court of law.

[Selfish_Meme]

As I said murder is a term that is used in a legal sense, I am sure and I know from this forum that people use it informally, but to be 'accurate' and have clear understanding in a discussion about the 'legality' of something we must use the best definition we can. In this case the legal definition because it is a legal term.

[straw man]

Enoch wrote: Because, words are symbolic representations of the meanings associated with them by society...

Exactly. To kill cruel or inhumanely WAS an associated meaning by society. That's how the definition wound up in the dictionary. That's how ANY definition winds up in the dictionary. That is by WIDESPREAD USAGE. If killing cruelly or inhumanely was never accepted by society as a legit meaning, it would never wind up in the dictionary as a definition, would it?

Quote: Legally and societally speaking, murder indicates illegality.

Legally speaking maybe. But I was not using this in a legal context. I was using it in a casual context. Again, we are not in a court of law arguing this, this is just a regular casual conversation.

Quote: Furthermore, the words "bank" and "account" are socially accepted symbolic representations with multiple meanings that are mutally agreed upon by society.

So is murder. Even if you guys deny it. If my definition is invalid and not agreed upon by society, then what may I ask is it doing in the dictionary?

[straw man]

Selfish_Meme wrote: As I said murder is a term that is used in a legal sense, I am sure and I know from this forum that people use it informally, but to be 'accurate' and have clear understanding in a discussion about the 'legality' of something we must use the best definition we can. In this case the legal definition because it is a legal term.

Once again, I was NOT using the term in a legal sense. It doesn't HAVE to be used in a legal context. Again, we are not in a court of law.

[Selfish_Meme]

But we are discussing the legality of something which makes it relevant to the legal definition.

[straw man]

Selfish_Meme wrote: But we are discussing the legality of something which makes it relevant to the legal definition.

My claim is that abortion CAN be called murder if it is cruel (like if we are NOT discussing the legality).

So if we are NOT discussing the legality of something, then abortion can be called murder if it's cruel or unusual.

That's all I was saying, that it CAN be called murder (in certain situations, like when it's cruel and we're not talking on legal terms).

[Selfish_Meme]

OK then, yes by a non-formal and non-legal definition you may consider it murder.

[Prog]

straw man wrote:
I was using it (the term MURDER) in a casual context.

LOFL :bnghd:

[Varyag]

obama08 wrote: REPUBLICANS PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS!
I know I made it slightly long, but im sure it will be worth the read.


Ramesh Ponnuru, the author of “The Party of Death” outlines his case against abortion by stating that the democrats, the media, and the courts have a “disregard for life”.
I cannot begin to state how many problems there are in what this man is trying to say.

To start off, out of all democrats, less than 50% are “pro-choice”, and almost the majority of pro-choice people do not condone late term abortions. One thing we do not see on his cover is that there are republicans who are pro-choice.

One thing he also fails to mention in his book is the fact that since abortion was made legal the crime rate in America has significantly been reduced. Many times, the people who are getting abortions tend to be poor black women in big cities, who’s children if not aborted would have in many cases become hooked into gangs, violence, drugs, and just causing more crime within big cities.

Isn’t this what so many republicans want? I’m not calling them racist but we do understand from hurricane Katrina our republican administration did not have a very big heart for the thousands of black people ravaged in New Orleans…which leads to my point, aren’t they happy these black children are aborted?

I like the term he uses…“The Party of Death”. It’s a phrase conservatives are going to love because it uses one of the biggest generalized titles that I have ever seen come out of a conservative book…well besides Ann Coulters “GODLESS” b/s.

But lets talk about “death” on both parties. Like I said before, less than 50% of democrats are pro-choice. Which leads to my question….what percentage of republicans are pro-war? See because out of every republican that I have ever talked too…almost all of them favor the war in Iraq. This compared to when I talk to a lot of democrats, they tend to not be too favorable of the pro-choice agenda.

How about the history of the death penalty. If you look back Republicans have always been the bigger favors on it. Notice how I say “the bigger favors” because I’m not going to be like Ponnuru and suggest there aren’t people who favor the death penalty from the Democratic Party.

And my last issue…gun control. How would it be if we all had free access to guns? The death and crime rate in big cities would sky rocket, and if abortion was made illegal as well, the crime rate would soar even higher. Talk about a disregard of life…I see it way more in the Republican party then in the Democratic.

Ok ban abortion for white women and encourage it for blacks and hispanics, as racist as that sounds, its probably a good thing for the country and for the blacks and hispanics that do make it into birth.

[agentkgb]

I find it unlikely that either party is "the party of death." Both sides accept the deaths of some group under some circumstances.

[Lumina]

agentkgb wrote: I find it unlikely that either party is "the party of death." Both sides accept the deaths of some group under some circumstances.

Could you provide some examples please?

[Obilisk18]

Lumina wrote: agentkgb wrote: I find it unlikely that either party is "the party of death." Both sides accept the deaths of some group under some circumstances.

Could you provide some examples please?

I don't know what agentkb had in mind, but the death penalty is obviously something the Republican Party supports that advocates the death of a group.

[Varyag]

Obilisk18 wrote: Lumina wrote: agentkgb wrote: I find it unlikely that either party is "the party of death." Both sides accept the deaths of some group under some circumstances.

Could you provide some examples please?

I don't know what agentkb had in mind, but the death penalty is obviously something the Republican Party supports that advocates the death of a group.

Yes, the guilty, as opposed to the innocent.

[Obilisk18]

Varyag wrote: Obilisk18 wrote: Lumina wrote: agentkgb wrote: I find it unlikely that either party is "the party of death." Both sides accept the deaths of some group under some circumstances.

Could you provide some examples please?

I don't know what agentkb had in mind, but the death penalty is obviously something the Republican Party supports that advocates the death of a group.

Yes, the guilty, as opposed to the innocent.

I'm not talking about how it's justified. Or which I believe to be more justifiable. I'm simply stating a simple fact. Clearly, Republicans accept the death of murders.

[Lumina]

No, you're overgeneralizing--trying to construct a universal proposition about "all Republicans"--by your statement. It's demonstrably untrue that all Republicans support the death penalty just as it is equally untrue that all Dems don't.

[Obilisk18]

Lumina wrote: No, you're overgeneralizing--trying to construct a universal proposition about "all Republicans"--by your statement. It's demonstrably untrue that all Republicans support the death penalty just as it is equally untrue that all Dems don't.

Of course it's untrue. I'm a Republican who doesn't support the death penalty. But that's not a really useful thing to say when attempting to discuss anything. When someone mentions "the party" supports, or the party does, they're generally referring to the party platform, or the quasi-official position of the party. And it is demonstratably true that the death penalty is endorsed by the vast majority of Republicans.

[agentkgb]

Obilisk18 wrote: Lumina wrote: agentkgb wrote: I find it unlikely that either party is "the party of death." Both sides accept the deaths of some group under some circumstances.

Could you provide some examples please?

I don't know what agentkb had in mind, but the death penalty is obviously something the Republican Party supports that advocates the death of a group.
That was one. Also, war causes death. Most Democrats support abortion, which does result in a death, in my opinion.

[Hypocritical_Hypocrisy]

Of course, abortion is depriving a baby of life. Thus, it is killing. And killing = murder.

[Selfish_Meme]

Hypocritical_Hypocrisy wrote: Of course, abortion is depriving a baby of life. Thus, it is killing. And killing = murder.
Not legally it isn't.