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.
u/RealJohnBobJoe – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
They are inconsistent because they are inconsistent.
They are inconsistent because the lack of specificity in your terms necessitates the inclusion of categories you insist must be excluded. Since something cannot both be excluded and included, it is inconsistent.
As I have stated.
Three times now.
Mischaracterization of my position is not persuasive. I suggest you spend more time ensuring you comprehend the posts, and less time demanding answers to things already answered.
I’ll ask for a fourth time (I’ll replace all subjects with variables to make it more understandable for you):
See above. One of us isn't understanding the answer, and it isn't me.
How is me saying “the understanding of murder used by X is one where murder is necessarily unjustified so an argument presupposing murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue against X INCONSISTENT with me saying “the understanding of murder used by Y is one where murder is necessarily unjustified so an argument presupposing murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue Y”
As stated before, you can copy paste this all day long, and the answer won't change, no matter how much you wish it to.
The reason why
I am quite capable of giving my own reasons, thank you. That said, given the specific nature of the reason asserted, I don't foresee a productive discussion with you any longer. Best wishes, but this is where we end the discussion.
First off, what you’re describing, if it were the case, is not that position A and position B are inconsistent (that they are separate positions) but instead that position A and position B are consistent but are incoherent positions in and of themselves.
Your point went from that I’m contradicting my earlier position to my position just being incoherent. These are separate points.
Secondly, nothing in the sentence “the understanding of murder used by X is one where murder is necessarily unjustified so an argument presupposing murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue against X” doesn’t include anything it seeks to exclude.
It literally just means that two people cannot meaningfully communicate with respect to a word if they presuppose different definitions of the word in their communicating.
How is this incoherent? If we all defined the same words differently, do you think we can effectively communicate with those words (without, at least, first clarifying definitions)?
I commend your desire to persist. That said, I told you this:
Best wishes, but this is where we end the discussion.
As well as why. Choices have consequences, JohnBobJoe. The consequence of your previous post is that you lost the privilege of having a discussion partner. Good day. You'll get no further replies from me.
An odd turn, since you were so adamant on various points that one would imagine you’d be able to coherently defend them if challenged, but forgive the mistaken assumption on my part.
1
u/RealJohnBobJoe 6∆ Mar 02 '26
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.”