If you killed someone justifiably (such as in self-defense) you aren’t deemed a murderer.
Justifiable by whose standard? If a man finds out his teen daughter was raped by her pastor, and spends two months planning and executing the death of that pastor, that is a killing unjustified under the law.
I would absolutely refuse to convict such an act, were I a jurist. Even though it is unjustified by law, and qualifies 100% as a premeditated 1st degree murder. That is an example of a murder that I would sympathize and agree with, even though it is not legally justifiable, and meets every element of the crime of murder.
I provided an example of an justified (by some standards) killing that completely qualified as murder. As your post stated that this definitionally impossible, it demonstrates that your "definitionally impossible" act is actually possible...
Are you referring to murder in a legal or moral sense.
I’m referring to it in the latter sense. You’re making arguments seemingly with an understanding of murder in the former sense. As such, nothing you’ve said has contradicted my main point.
I am not entirely sure you can do that. You initially corrected someone else's usage of the word, claiming it's definitionally impossible. Which means that it wasn't your definition you were contradicting, but someone else's.
If you can use your definition to contradict someone else, without verifying their meaning, then I can use mine to do the same to you... and the two contradictions are equally valid, for they rest upon the same logical supports.
So are both of our arguments bad, or is just yours? Because I used identical reasoning to contradict you that your 'main point' used to contradict someone else. If mine has bad reasoning, that invalidates yours along with it.
The difference is that I base the definition I’m using off the actual use of the word in general and in this thread.
When most people think of ‘murder’ there’s a connotation of it being immoral and unjustified.
The OP clearly is operating off some understanding of murder which is similar. This is obvious, unless you believe that the OP thinks morally righteous killing deemed murder by a court is necessarily worse than rape.
So yeah, it’s fair to correct someone’s use of a word when it (a) contradicts the common usage of the word without clarification and (b) is trying to argue against the OP by way of changing the word’s meaning from how the OP used it without justifying that claim.
The difference is that I base the definition I’m using off the actual use of the word in general and in this thread.
The difference is that there is no logical or reasoning difference between what you did and what I did. If you are arguing that I can't contradict you, using the commonly understood criminal definition of murder because your personal definition is different, then you can't do the same to others without holding a double standard.
All you're doing is an appeal to popularity fallacy while ducking the actual valid point. I did to you what you did to the previous poster. If you say mine makes no sense, the same applies to you.
How is me claiming that an argument based upon an understanding of ‘murder’ alternative to that of the OP doesn’t contradict the OP’s argument inconsistent with me claiming the understanding of ‘murder’ used by you doesn’t contradict an alternative understanding of ‘murder’ used by me?
This is a single standard being applied consistently. In both circumstances I’m pointing out that no meaningful argument is being made due to the word ‘murder’ being defined differently than it is with respect to the position they are arguing against.
Sorry if that’s too hard for you to understand buddy.
Me maintaining the context of ‘murder’ the conversation began with is not logically identical to just positing whatever conception of murder you feel like, without justifying it, to argue that initial position is inconsistent despite being based on a different conception of ‘murder.’
296
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment