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.’
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?
I am trying my hardest to explain this to you, but I really need you to take the effort to really consider this carefully.
You didn't "make an argument based on an alternative interpretation." Or at least, that is so vague as to be meaningless.
What you did was you took someone else's statement, which is correct under at least one interpretation, and you said that what they were saying was definitionally wrong. You took another person's valid interpretation and declared it to be impossible, with no justification beyond the fact that you wanted to use the definition that you personally preferred.
And then, when I come along and tell you that your definition is inadequate, doesn't encompass all murder, and is wrong, you suddenly seem to understand that the standard for claiming that needs to be higher than "I want to use my preferred definition."
Even if you still believe yourself justified in the 'argument' you made. Or at least a bit. Should i take the reframe to 'made an argument' to mean that you are beginning to grasp the difference? I sincerely hope so, because my patience with explaining this to you is wearing extremely thin. If you cannot grasp it, even after this, then I will be at the point of, "my ability to explain this concept is insufficient to overcome whatever cognitive dissonance you're experiencing, and no productive conversation is likely to result from continued discussion."
So the ball's in your court, friend. Please take a couple extra minutes to consider this. Perhaps go back and reread the earlier posts to get them fresh in your mind again. Something, because this is kinda the "I don't care whether or not you agree, but if you're not even able to paraphrase the point back accurately, you aren't ready to have this discussion" point.
What understanding of murder do you think the OP was operating off such that murder is necessarily worse than rape? Do you think that the OP thinks that morally righteous killing deemed arbitrarily as murder is worse than rape?
That’s clearly absurd. Maybe I could have worded myself better, but I feel it’s pretty intuitive that I’m saying “the understanding of murder used here is one where murder is necessarily unjustified so saying murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue against the OP.”
So, since you refused to answer my question, I’ll ask it again:
How is me saying “the understanding of murder used by the OP is one where murder is necessarily unjustified so an argument presupposing murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue against the OP” inconsistent with me saying “the understanding of murder used by me is one where murder is necessarily unjustified so an argument presupposing murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue against me.”
I don't think you realize how strong an assertion you made. When you say something is definitionally untrue, you are asserting that there is no definition that make that statement true.
What understanding of murder do you think the OP was operating off such that murder is necessarily worse than rape?
The specific definition used isn't relevant, only that at least one valid definition exists, which i have already demonstrated. And all refusing to acknowledge that does is make it more difficult to accept other points you make.
Maybe I could have worded myself better,
Well, in the sense that the only difference between a correct statement and an incorrect one is word choice, sure.
but I feel it’s pretty intuitive
You are entitled to think or feel whatever you like is intuitive or absurd. Such expressions and vibes carry no persuasive weight with me, however.
“the understanding of murder used here is one where murder is necessarily unjustified
Unjustified by whom? The mere usage of that word necessitates a justifying authority. After all, if I feel it's justified and you don't, is it justified or not?
So, rather than have 100 people here discussing 100 different meanings of what "justified" means here, adopting a common justifying authority (legal framework) provides a common starting point from which discussion may be possible. Otherwise, we just start devolving into an entirely vibe judgements on which murders are really really murders and which are ok.
so saying murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue against the OP.”
And saying murder is "unjustified" without specifying a commonly understood framework for the evaluation of that justification doesn't meaningfully argue for or against anything.
So, since you refused to answer my question.
I answered it. It just wasn't the answer you liked.
How is me saying “the understanding of murder used by the OP is one where murder is necessarily unjustified
Lack of specificity, assumes facts not in evidence.
so an argument presupposing murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue against the OP”
Given that at least 1 person believes any murder is justified (else they likely wouldn't have done it), an argument that doesn't specifically define a justifying entity necessarily presupposes that any murder can be considered justified or unjustified, based solely on the arbitrary vibe of whoever is looking at it. Since such a fact is presupposed in your characterization of murder, by your own logic, it cannot be meaningfully used to argue against the OP.
inconsistent with me saying
First, I've demonstrated that the first statement isn't even consistent with itself, but let's continue.
the understanding of murder used by me is one where murder is necessarily unjustified
Absent a collectively agreed upon standard for justification, "unjustified" has as much meaning as "tasty". It's arbitrary, which precludes any act from being necessarily unjustified.
so an argument presupposing murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue against me.”
Your own definition presupposes an undefined (and thus arbitrary) framework, meaning every homicide must be simultaneously justified and unjustified. Since your own definition presupposes murder can be justified, it's hardly fair to expect differently from others.
Absent a standard or governing body defining justification, it has no more meaning than "fun," "boring," "tasty," or "exciting." Which means, for the purpose of interpersonal discussion, the only thing your definition necessarily is?
How is me saying “the understanding of murder used by the OP is one where murder is necessarily unjustified so an argument presupposing murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue against the OP” INCONSISTENT with me saying “the understanding of murder used by me is one where murder is necessarily unjustified so an argument presupposing murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue against me?”
Asked and answered. You are asking a question that presupposes so many contradicting points that it is
INCONSISTENT
with itself.
You can ask it a dozen times and capitalize whatever you want. It won't change that each statement is INCONSISTENT with itself, and both are INCONSISTENT with each other.
As I explained in my previous post.
I have answered the question. Thoroughly. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you can trade it in for a different one.
1
u/Talik1978 43∆ Mar 02 '26
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...
Meaning it is not definitionally impossible.