Okay, but your point of view is wrong. There is no side of this that you right. This isn't a question of moral standing or subjective reason… moreing. This is a definition. The very meaning of a word. It's equivalent to you taking the word cry and making it mean mourn. They are not the same, whether you see them as the same, or whether you see them as close to the same, or whether you see them as related is irrelevant. They are not the same and they will never mean the same thing.
PS. Tip of the tongue?
PPS. Meh, I could see the problem arising. I'll remember the extra s from now on. Cassandra has a nice ass. Too easy.
Because I guess I can't accept the fact that semantics and vocabulary definition are used to differentiate effectively the same thing. Maybe it's because in my mind taking someone's life is a murder still. Don't, however, give me yet another thesis about the meaning of these words.
So we should oust all words that mean nearly the same thing, but are in fact different? It seems only fair when you are more than willing to do it to one pair. That would leave not only a bland language, but one less efficacious also.
Taking someone's life changes with the circumstances, and so does the implications it has on the person doing it. To label someone who has killed under specific circumstances as a murderer is not only linguistically incorrect, but incorrect in labeling the person the same as others who have gone out of their way to end the life of another when not on correct terms with the law. If a man is walking through a dark alley and witnesses a rape and kills the abuser in the ensuing struggle should he be slandered with the same terminology given to the man who kills someone in that same dark alley because he saw the man slinging 20s as the club? I would sure disagree if you said yes. Or does your problem with the two different words pertain to the military? In that you find a man killing another man in defense of his country as little different than the man in the alley trying to steal a mans wallet?
Because I guess I can't accept the fact that semantics and vocabulary definition are used to differentiate effectively the same thing. Maybe… more it's because in my mind taking someone's life is a murder still. Don't, however, give me yet another thesis about the meaning of these words.
So we should oust all words that mean nearly the same thing, but are in fact different? It seems only fair when you are more than willing to… more do it to one pair. That would leave not only a bland language, but one less efficacious also.
Taking someone's life changes with the circumstances, and so does the implications it has on the person doing it. To label someone who has killed under specific circumstances as a murderer is not only linguistically incorrect, but incorrect in labeling the person the same as others who have gone out of their way to end the life of another when not on correct terms with the law. If a man is walking through a dark alley and witnesses a rape and kills the abuser in the ensuing struggle should he be slandered with the same terminology given to the man who kills someone in that same dark alley because he saw the man slinging 20s as the club? I would sure disagree if you said yes. Or does your problem with the two … [view original content]
I wasn't planning on dragging this out, but I guess I'll bite.
It's not a matter of perspective. I understand what you're trying to say, but the two things are not the same, and it's not really up to interpretation. Terrorists specifically and intentionally target/attack/kill/brutalize innocents in the name of their sick and intolerant cause. Do you really think this is the same thing with America? Of course America has harmed innocents here and there as well, but that is not their purpose. They aren't intentionally going around targeting and brutalizing innocent people for the purpose of spreading fear. I don't know how you can honestly sit here and say that the U.S. military is one in the same as terrorism. The actions are not the same, nor is the purpose behind those actions. Targeting and harming innocent people is not a shared agenda between the two. It's not as if the U.S. decides to go out and harm "x" number of innocent people to push their cause (which is actually one of peace, freedom, democracy, ect...)
Honestly this whole thing is a rather strawman type of argument to the original point you were responding to anyway, unless you were intentionally trying to go off on a tangent.
Perspective. You're shielded from our uses of fear because that would be viewed as stooping to their level.
Is torturing a probable terro… morerist different than them torturing an American soldier? Even the outcome is relatively the same, to further the cause. Theirs is driven by religion on the small man level and power on the higher up. Ours is driven by patriotism on the small man level and power on the higher up. The most major difference is the secrecy used.
Is that in response to me asking if we should oust all words meaning nearly the same thing but are in fact different? From what I understand the oriental languages do this much more than English. Perhaps you should learn and only speak that language if it satiates your desires for less descriptive speech?
We should also put random implications into someone else's statement, when they were never there.
By all means, elaborate.
And, you're completely right.
Wait, what? About what exactly? Most of what I said required answers to be complete thoughts.
No, that was a sarcastic statement. We shouldn't simplify or remove anything without specific needs.
Perhaps you should learn and only speak that language if it satiates your desires for less descriptive speech?
Perhaps you shouldn't tell me what to do?
"We should also put random implications into someone else's statement, when they were never there." By this statement I meant that I haven't proposed to oust all the different meanings of certain words or statements, but you seem to imply that I did.
Yes, I do agree that killing self-defense is different to a cold-blooded murder. Yes, I do agree that soldiers killing while on active service, i.e. in wars or conflicts, don't do the same as the murdering scum does. If that isn't enough, I'm afraid there isn't much else say.
Yes, we should.
Is that in response to me asking if we should oust all words meaning nearly the same thing but are in fact different… more? From what I understand the oriental languages do this much more than English. Perhaps you should learn and only speak that language if it satiates your desires for less descriptive speech?
We should also put random implications into someone else's statement, when they were never there.
By all means, elaborate.
And, you're completely right.
Wait, what? About what exactly? Most of what I said required answers to be complete thoughts.
No, that was a sarcastic statement. We shouldn't simplify or remove anything without specific needs.
Murder vs. Killing is a specific differentiation between two different types of a person taking another person's life. Therefore it makes no sense to get rid of it.
Perhaps you shouldn't tell me what to do?
I dont remember telling you to do it. Notice the use of the word "perhaps". It was just some advice. If you found the numerous ways to say slightly different, but different, things annoying to the point you want to disregard the meaning of those words to be interchangeable then perhaps you would prefer a language where this actually occurs? I'll try to be less helpful from now on I guess.
By this statement I meant that I haven't proposed to oust all the different meanings of certain words or statements, but you seem to imply that I did.
I already talked about this. Actually it consisted of the majority of my first paragraph. "It seems only fair when you are more than willing to do it to one pair. That would leave not only a bland language, but one less efficacious also." Meaning that if you want to disregard the meaning of the first pair we talked about because (to quote you) "Because I guess I can't accept the fact that semantics and vocabulary definition are used to differentiate effectively the same thing." Which means you can't accept different words and their definitions differentiate slightly different, but different, things.
Yes, I do agree that killing self-defense is different to a cold-blooded murder. Yes, I do agree that soldiers killing while on active service, i.e. in wars or conflicts, don't do the same as the murdering scum does. If that isn't enough, I'm afraid there isn't much else say.
So then why do you find it wrong or incorrect or irrelevant (to list a few possibilities as to why) to separate the soldiers and the good Samaritans from those "murdering scum"? It's seems a small price to pay to keep the scum and the not-scum slightly separated. I know I would hate to be equated to a fucking serial killer for saving a life or something.
Anyways. It's been an interesting conversation. Until next time.
* No, that was a sarcastic statement. We shouldn't simplify or remove anything without specific needs.
Perhaps you should learn and o… morenly speak that language if it satiates your desires for less descriptive speech?
Perhaps you shouldn't tell me what to do?
* "We should also put random implications into someone else's statement, when they were never there." By this statement I meant that I haven't proposed to oust all the different meanings of certain words or statements, but you seem to imply that I did.
* Yes, I do agree that killing self-defense is different to a cold-blooded murder. Yes, I do agree that soldiers killing while on active service, i.e. in wars or conflicts, don't do the same as the murdering scum does. If that isn't enough, I'm afraid there isn't much else say.
Murder vs. Killing is a specific differentiation between two different types of a person taking another person's life. Therefore it makes no sense to get rid of it.
I didn't propose to get rid of it, just in case. Never did.
I don't remember telling you to do it. Notice the use of the word "perhaps". It was just some advice. If you found the numerous ways to say slightly different, but different, things annoying to the point you want to disregard the meaning of those words to be interchangeable then perhaps you would prefer a language where this actually occurs? I'll try to be less helpful from now on I guess.
I'm fine with using English to converse with people, so "advising" me to use language that I would supposedly be more comfortable with is simply rude. You're hardly being "helpful". I agree that I might have been wrong with stubbornly refusing to accept the difference between the words, but this doesn't mean I've been trying to disregard them. If "being less helpful" is going to stop you from making assumptions about my intentions, by all means.
I already talked about this. Actually it consisted of the majority of my first paragraph. "It seems only fair when you are more than willing to do it to one pair. That would leave not only a bland language, but one less efficacious also." Meaning that if you want to disregard the meaning of the first pair we talked about because (to quote you) "Because I guess I can't accept the fact that semantics and vocabulary definition are used to differentiate effectively the same thing." Which means you can't accept different words and their definitions differentiate slightly different, but different, things.
I admit that I was wrong with my statements, however, I don't want to disregard their meaning, alright? My point was that both terms referred to taking a life, and I found the fact that they're differentiated like that to be strange. And, yeah, as strange to you as it may be, I actually can accept different meanings of words. I know that this point will likely cause more argument, but, by all means.
So then why do you find it wrong or incorrect or irrelevant (to list a few possibilities as to why) to separate the soldiers and the good Samaritans from those "murdering scum"? It's seems a small price to pay to keep the scum and the not-scum slightly separated. I know I would hate to be equated to a fucking serial killer for saving a life or something.
I don't, not anymore, at least. I gave it some thought and decided that taking a life can be different in a variety of cases. So, I do apologize for dragging this on.
Anyways. It's been an interesting conversation. Until next time.
No, that was a sarcastic statement. We shouldn't simplify or remove anything without specific needs.
Murder vs. Killing is a specifi… morec differentiation between two different types of a person taking another person's life. Therefore it makes no sense to get rid of it.
Perhaps you shouldn't tell me what to do?
I dont remember telling you to do it. Notice the use of the word "perhaps". It was just some advice. If you found the numerous ways to say slightly different, but different, things annoying to the point you want to disregard the meaning of those words to be interchangeable then perhaps you would prefer a language where this actually occurs? I'll try to be less helpful from now on I guess.
By this statement I meant that I haven't proposed to oust all the different meanings of certain words or statements, but you seem to imply that I did.
I already talked about this. Actually it consisted of the majority o… [view original content]
I believe that from the perspective of them that it looks the same, or close enough to the same to be thought of as justification. Did you know when we first entered Iraq that the number of enemy militants increased exponentially? We couldn't figure out how we were killing them, yet their numbers kept rising. As it turns out the number of innocents we had killed had spurred the growth of people willing to lay down their lives to ward off the evil invaders. The ones trying to push their agenda on the populace through horrible acts like bombing and shooting masses of innocents. Later we recognized this sign and set out in measures to prevent the deaths of innocents and limit the backlash from the population. Not because we were good or righteous but because it was threatening us. And making our goal, our agenda that much harder to accomplish. Which, by the way, was hardly the "spread democracy, free the people, provide them peace" agenda the media leads the people to believe. If you honestly follow that train of thought then this is a pointless venture and you can go back to living the blissful style. As I said earlier the lower levels have good guy goals to reach, the other side of the coin is nothing of the like. They are much more alike than you will ever see from the inside looking out.
From our perspective the milky way looks nothing like the galaxies we see from the hubble telescope.
I wasn't planning on dragging this out, but I guess I'll bite.
It's not a matter of perspective. I understand what you're trying to say, … morebut the two things are not the same, and it's not really up to interpretation. Terrorists specifically and intentionally target/attack/kill/brutalize innocents in the name of their sick and intolerant cause. Do you really think this is the same thing with America? Of course America has harmed innocents here and there as well, but that is not their purpose. They aren't intentionally going around targeting and brutalizing innocent people for the purpose of spreading fear. I don't know how you can honestly sit here and say that the U.S. military is one in the same as terrorism. The actions are not the same, nor is the purpose behind those actions. Targeting and harming innocent people is not a shared agenda between the two. It's not as if the U.S. decides to go out and harm "x" number of innocent people to p… [view original content]
I didn't propose to get rid of it, just in case. Never did.
No you proposed a personal nullification of the meaning.
I'm fine with using English to converse with people, so "advising" me to use language that I would supposedly be more comfortable with is simply rude.
If a person is using a flat pillow and says they don't like it is it rude to tell the person that there are other pillows in the cabinet?
I agree that I might have been wrong with stubbornly refusing to accept the difference between the words, but this doesn't mean I've been trying to disregard them. If "being less helpful" is going to stop you from making assumptions about my intentions, by all means.
Should I link the definiton of "disregard" and apply it to you purposefully ignoring the definiton of the two words, then trying to justify your reasoning for not sperating the two meaning by your own accord with faulty reasoning? When you're vague about your reasoning, or you're reasoning leaves much or everything to be desired, how do you expect me to make the connections if not through assumptions and critical thinking?
No, it wasn't.
Oh, come now. Even if you didn't enjoy it it was definitely interesting.
P.S. I do apologize. I get in trolly moods sometimes, and this was one of them. Have a good Christmas
Murder vs. Killing is a specific differentiation between two different types of a person taking another person's life. Therefore it makes no… more sense to get rid of it.
I didn't propose to get rid of it, just in case. Never did.
I don't remember telling you to do it. Notice the use of the word "perhaps". It was just some advice. If you found the numerous ways to say slightly different, but different, things annoying to the point you want to disregard the meaning of those words to be interchangeable then perhaps you would prefer a language where this actually occurs? I'll try to be less helpful from now on I guess.
I'm fine with using English to converse with people, so "advising" me to use language that I would supposedly be more comfortable with is simply rude. You're hardly being "helpful". I agree that I might have been wrong with stubbornly refusing to accept the difference between the words, but this doesn't mean I've b… [view original content]
No you proposed a personal nullification of the meaning.
A "personal nullification" implies that I "nullified" it for myself, hence "personal". Then what is (or rather, was, since I'm no longer doing that) the problem? Do I force my "nullification" on you or anyone else in here?
If a person is using a flat pillow and says they don't like it is it rude to tell the person that there are other pillows in the cabinet?
I'm sorry, did I imply I don't like the entirety of English language by dismissing a pair of words with similar definitions? The better analogy of your statement would be this: a person says they don't like a flat pillow, and you propose they change their entire bed, just because the pillow is supposedly uncomfortable.
Should I link the definition of "disregard" and apply it to you purposefully ignoring the definition of the two words?
No, the Almighty One, I happen to know to the definition of that word. Apply it wherever you want, though.
When you're vague about your reasoning, or you're reasoning leaves much or everything to be desired, how do you expect me to make the connections if not through assumptions and critical thinking?
I don't expect you do anything, really. I wasn't planning on arguing with you, but, apparently, my plans have changed. I'm not planning to argue with you about my reasoning being "faulty" or not, it may as well have been.
Oh, come now. Even if you didn't enjoy it it was definitely interesting.
No, it wasn't.
P.S. I do apologize. I get in trolly moods sometimes, and this was one of them. Have a good Christmas
Should I give a damn? Have whatever Christmas you desire, and keep your wishes to yourself.
I didn't propose to get rid of it, just in case. Never did.
No you proposed a personal nullification of the meaning.
I'm fine … morewith using English to converse with people, so "advising" me to use language that I would supposedly be more comfortable with is simply rude.
If a person is using a flat pillow and says they don't like it is it rude to tell the person that there are other pillows in the cabinet?
I agree that I might have been wrong with stubbornly refusing to accept the difference between the words, but this doesn't mean I've been trying to disregard them. If "being less helpful" is going to stop you from making assumptions about my intentions, by all means.
Should I link the definiton of "disregard" and apply it to you purposefully ignoring the definiton of the two words, then trying to justify your reasoning for not sperating the two meaning by your own accord with faulty reasoning? When you're vag… [view original content]
Actually asshole, I don't have as much free time as you to be on this site 24/7 writing fucking essays explaining things to hypocrites. Also, I don't feel like it.
I think we can all probably safely assume that there is no reasonable or potentially intellectual conversation to be had with the guy. If he… more is going to say what he did, and then refuse to back it up, he is only looking to toss around insults and not actually partake in discussion. It just screams "12 year old kid on the internet", in my opinion. Which is why I will be ignoring any sort of lash out from the guy for saying this
No, you're a hypocrite for supporting killing people for killing other people, does that make any sense to you? It's hypocritical anyway you look at it. Everything about you is a contradiction.
I remember I once created a thread, asking others how they felt out about parental discipline, specifically whether they supported spanking … morean unruly child.
Are you saying I'm a hypocrite because I support spanking an unruly child, but say I also believe that people who commit sexual molestation against a child deserve the death penalty?
Are you serious!?
What kind the hell kind of sense does that make?
Spanking an unruly child, helps to teach them right from wrong, as well as respect.
The word respect, carries the connotation of having a healthy fear of the consequences that follow from doing wrong, like stealing and etc.
Today we have a whole society of youths who feel they can do anything they want, and nothing bad is going to happen to them.
And that's not reality!
The reality is that their are consequences for doing wrong.
And teaching a child to respect his parents, as well as respect for authority, giving children that prope… [view original content]
Actually asshole, I don't have as much free time as you to be on this site 24/7 writing fucking essays explaining things to hypocrites. Also, I don't feel like it.
No, you're a hypocrite for supporting killing people for killing other people, does that make any sense to you? It's hypocritical anyway you look at it. Everything about you is a contradiction.
Who gave you all the right to decide who deserves to live and die? Who gave you all the right to pick and choose the definition of "good" and when it applies to you? I don't even know any of you, why would I respect you, especially hypocrites.
A "personal nullification" implies that I "nullified" it for myself, hence "personal". Then what is (or rather, was, since I'm no longer doing that) the problem? Do I force my "nullification" on you or anyone else in here?
Discussion, coercion, intriguing, curiosity, wonder and amazement at the thought process. Take your pick. Also, because you were wrong. Had you taken it upon yourself to differentiate your personal gripe with the two words meaning roughly the same thing instead.....
You know what, I'm not going to keep stringing you along. From your last two sentences in your post it's obvious you can't handle this situation with a sense of poise, and I don't want to add to your ill will or distemperment. I'll be the one to walk away so that you can calm yourself. Again I apologize for riling you, I didn't realize you would attack the hook with such ferocity.
No you proposed a personal nullification of the meaning.
A "personal nullification" implies that I "nullified" it for myself, hence … more"personal". Then what is (or rather, was, since I'm no longer doing that) the problem? Do I force my "nullification" on you or anyone else in here?
If a person is using a flat pillow and says they don't like it is it rude to tell the person that there are other pillows in the cabinet?
I'm sorry, did I imply I don't like the entirety of English language by dismissing a pair of words with similar definitions? The better analogy of your statement would be this: a person says they don't like a flat pillow, and you propose they change their entire bed, just because the pillow is supposedly uncomfortable.
Should I link the definition of "disregard" and apply it to you purposefully ignoring the definition of the two words?
No, the Almighty One, I happen to know to the definition of th… [view original content]
I admit that I was wrong. I'd continue my line of thought, but I already did previously. Yes, those two words mean different things, and I stubbornly refused to agree that they do.
I also admit that I've lost my temper, and for that I apologize. I should have handled it in a more mature manner, but my emotions made me act rashly. I do apologize sincerely for that. Even if I disagreed with you, I should have handled it with more cool.
Again I apologize for riling you, I didn't realize you would attack the hook with such ferocity.
The hook, eh? Were you trying to bait me, then? I guess you've managed to do that just fine, but, if that wasn't your intention, I apologize for assuming.
I'll leave this quote by Winston Churchill, though:
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught."
A "personal nullification" implies that I "nullified" it for myself, hence "personal". Then what is (or rather, was, since I'm no longer doi… moreng that) the problem? Do I force my "nullification" on you or anyone else in here?
Discussion, coercion, intriguing, curiosity, wonder and amazement at the thought process. Take your pick. Also, because you were wrong. Had you taken it upon yourself to differentiate your personal gripe with the two words meaning roughly the same thing instead.....
You know what, I'm not going to keep stringing you along. From your last two sentences in your post it's obvious you can't handle this situation with a sense of poise, and I don't want to add to your ill will or distemperment. I'll be the one to walk away so that you can calm yourself. Again I apologize for riling you, I didn't realize you would attack the hook with such ferocity.
Adieu.
There is a difference between incidental casualties and actually going into a place with the intention and purpose of targeting and massacring groups of innocents. I don't think you could possibly be thinking about this in a more black and white sort of way. If the military was over there intentionally targeting and massacring the innocent population, there would be outrage. Just because innocent people have died in both scenarios does not mean the two are equatable. No doubt the U.S. Army has looked the other way at times when their methods have resulted in civilian casualties, but this highly differs from terrorists actually having the goal and intention of taking innocent lives. It highly differs from cutting an innocent man's head off on camera and putting it out there for the world to see, just for the sake of sending a message. To quote Tinni from above: "We should always put the safety of our citizens above others. Putting other countries before ours, and acting like martyrs does not keep us safe from the enemy. Again, America is not intentionally going around taking innocent hostages and beheading them on camera(something that terrorists have done in the last couple weeks mind you), the military doesn't carry out violence out of the malice in their hearts. It is done out of necessity to protect our people."
Argue about the ethics if you want (or don't, because we're massively off topic as it is), but there is no way on earth that you can equate the United States military to terrorists.
Which, by the way, was hardly the "spread democracy, free the people, provide them peace" agenda the media leads the people to believe. If you honestly follow that train of thought then this is a pointless venture and you can go back to living the blissful style
Excuse me for sounding idealistic, but I do refuse to believe that there are zero feelings of this among our leadership. Obviously these things aren't actually why we went into Iraq. I was speaking more to the country's ideals simply to contrast to what we see from actual terrorists.
Anyway, this topic isn't meant as a discussion for justifying America's actions over in the middle east. I really don't know that I want to further discuss this, as it is totally warped from the actual original point you were arguing against. Regardless of whether or not you find justification in America's actions, that doesn't hurt the logic behind Tinni's reasoning in dealing with terrorists. It's not as if America should be like: "You know what, we aren't exactly saints either, so I guess we'll level with you guys/downplay our response and not deal with you like we actually know that we should". What point were you trying to make? Were you just randomly tossing an aside in there?
I believe that from the perspective of them that it looks the same, or close enough to the same to be thought of as justification. Did you k… morenow when we first entered Iraq that the number of enemy militants increased exponentially? We couldn't figure out how we were killing them, yet their numbers kept rising. As it turns out the number of innocents we had killed had spurred the growth of people willing to lay down their lives to ward off the evil invaders. The ones trying to push their agenda on the populace through horrible acts like bombing and shooting masses of innocents. Later we recognized this sign and set out in measures to prevent the deaths of innocents and limit the backlash from the population. Not because we were good or righteous but because it was threatening us. And making our goal, our agenda that much harder to accomplish. Which, by the way, was hardly the "spread democracy, free the people, provide them peace" agenda the m… [view original content]
That being said, I'd like to see more of the death penalty. It shows criminals we arent going to stand for their shit. Take that away and what would stop a criminal from killing an entire family or raping someone? Trust me, the fear of death stops someone better than anything else.
And as for the 'life sentence' - fuck that. It cost way to much to keep them in a cell. If they get a life sentence, their life should be cut short.
And for the cost of the death penalty, the way they do it is way to expensive, you know how much those Chemicals cost? A lot. Now compare that to the price of a bullet. Or if you want to go even cheaper, go get some rope and a tree.
Sorry lad, but I don't think anything anyone here said is going to kill anyone. All i suppose were doing is spewing what we believe, and that's not going to dictate whether someones going to live or die.
Who gave you all the right to decide who deserves to live and die? Who gave you all the right to pick and choose the definition of "good" and when it applies to you? I don't even know any of you, why would I respect you, especially hypocrites.
Fun Fact: I am 95% sure the Roman Catholic Church supports the death penalty if all other options are exhausted.
Well, not only is the de… moreath penalty showing out waning barbarism, it breaks something: 'Do not kill' in laws of almost everything, If we kill those who kill, what does that make us? Murders.
Additionally, wouldn't you rather have some rot in prison for the rest of their life instead of getting a 'freebie' out? Their death his utterly painless. Is that a real punishment?
On the corporal penalty, I'm confused? Can someone explain that?
All are innocent until proven guilty.
That being said, I'd like to see more of the death penalty. It shows criminals we arent going to st… moreand for their shit. Take that away and what would stop a criminal from killing an entire family or raping someone? Trust me, the fear of death stops someone better than anything else.
And as for the 'life sentence' - fuck that. It cost way to much to keep them in a cell. If they get a life sentence, their life should be cut short.
And for the cost of the death penalty, the way they do it is way to expensive, you know how much those Chemicals cost? A lot. Now compare that to the price of a bullet. Or if you want to go even cheaper, go get some rope and a tree.
I didn't exactly mean everything I said. The death penalty isn't the best solution. Its just. I don't know how to explain what I feel about it. Its kinda like ' its a necessary evil' I don't like to think about it and I don't like that I don't think about it, lots of people that do t deserve it die because a flaw in our judiciary system. Please don't hold anything I said against me.
All are innocent until proven guilty.
That being said, I'd like to see more of the death penalty. It shows criminals we arent going to st… moreand for their shit. Take that away and what would stop a criminal from killing an entire family or raping someone? Trust me, the fear of death stops someone better than anything else.
And as for the 'life sentence' - fuck that. It cost way to much to keep them in a cell. If they get a life sentence, their life should be cut short.
And for the cost of the death penalty, the way they do it is way to expensive, you know how much those Chemicals cost? A lot. Now compare that to the price of a bullet. Or if you want to go even cheaper, go get some rope and a tree.
Maybe I can redeem myself here,
I didn't exactly mean everything I said. The death penalty isn't the best solution. Its just. I don't kno… morew how to explain what I feel about it. Its kinda like ' its a necessary evil' I don't like to think about it and I don't like that I don't think about it, lots of people that do t deserve it die because a flaw in our judiciary system. Please don't hold anything I said against me.
Everything about is a contradiction?
With all due respect, if you have never met me in person, nor spent considerable time around me in person, how can you possibly know that to be true?
You have to spend considerable time with a man, before you truly know who and what he is as a person.
And also, executing someone who has murdered another person, is called justice.
And justice is balanced.
No, you're a hypocrite for supporting killing people for killing other people, does that make any sense to you? It's hypocritical anyway you look at it. Everything about you is a contradiction.
I'm not even going to bother trying to reason with a comment like that. Clearly you have no tolerance or respect for anyone unless they agree with exactly what you say.
Who gave you all the right to decide who deserves to live and die? Who gave you all the right to pick and choose the definition of "good" and when it applies to you? I don't even know any of you, why would I respect you, especially hypocrites.
Thank you for elaborating more on that section of my post, you explained it very well. I'm a bit surprised that it even needed elaborating in the first place though, I thought it was pretty straightforward..
There is a difference between incidental casualties and actually going into a place with the intention and purpose of targeting and massacri… moreng groups of innocents. I don't think you could possibly be thinking about this in a more black and white sort of way. If the military was over there intentionally targeting and massacring the innocent population, there would be outrage. Just because innocent people have died in both scenarios does not mean the two are equatable. No doubt the U.S. Army has looked the other way at times when their methods have resulted in civilian casualties, but this highly differs from terrorists actually having the goal and intention of taking innocent lives. It highly differs from cutting an innocent man's head off on camera and putting it out there for the world to see, just for the sake of sending a message. To quote Tinni from above: "We should always put the safety of our citizens above others. Putting other count… [view original content]
No prob. I just kind of felt bad that your comprehension abilities were being questioned when the issue was actually the other way around. I thought you were perfectly clear in what you said. Just thought I would try and clear things up with the guy a little
Thank you for elaborating more on that section of my post, you explained it very well. I'm a bit surprised that it even needed elaborating in the first place though, I thought it was pretty straightforward..
lol It happens. Sometimes two people are just so drastically on the opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to a certain topic that it is difficult to force them on to the same page. Which is why I kind of opted out towards the end, we weren't going to find any common ground. But thanks anyway, I will admit I was more snarky than usual, and probably could have been more patient, or explained things more clearly as you had. I just cannot stand it when I hear someone talk badly about the military, especially when those are the people who put their lives on the line to protect us, they get their hands dirty so we don't have to. I have the utmost respect for soldiers because of their sacrifices. And then to see them being compared to Terrorists? I was just seething at that point.
No prob. I just kind of felt bad that your comprehension abilities were being questioned when the issue was actually the other way around. I… more thought you were perfectly clear in what you said. Just thought I would try and clear things up with the guy a little
Yeah, that's understandable, I was a little annoyed as well. I didn't really even want to get into it, it just kinda happened. I just wanted to give my quick little clarification and then walk away... but that never really works out lol.
Viva is a good guy though. I find it kind of odd that he isn't on the same page here.
lol It happens. Sometimes two people are just so drastically on the opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to a certain topic that it … moreis difficult to force them on to the same page. Which is why I kind of opted out towards the end, we weren't going to find any common ground. But thanks anyway, I will admit I was more snarky than usual, and probably could have been more patient, or explained things more clearly as you had. I just cannot stand it when I hear someone talk badly about the military, especially when those are the people who put their lives on the line to protect us, they get their hands dirty so we don't have to. I have the utmost respect for soldiers because of their sacrifices. And then to see them being compared to Terrorists? I was just seething at that point.
Comments
I'm not an idiot of some sort. I'm well aware of differences between "murder" and "killing", and their given definitions. Happy now?
I'm always happy. I guess I just don't see why you would argue a point you know is incorrect.
Fo real? Where can I start collecting it to sell later? Besides the moon.
Because I guess I can't accept the fact that semantics and vocabulary definition are used to differentiate effectively the same thing. Maybe it's because in my mind taking someone's life is a murder still. Don't, however, give me yet another thesis about the meaning of these words.
I know. I'm in complete agreeance with you.
So we should oust all words that mean nearly the same thing, but are in fact different? It seems only fair when you are more than willing to do it to one pair. That would leave not only a bland language, but one less efficacious also.
Taking someone's life changes with the circumstances, and so does the implications it has on the person doing it. To label someone who has killed under specific circumstances as a murderer is not only linguistically incorrect, but incorrect in labeling the person the same as others who have gone out of their way to end the life of another when not on correct terms with the law. If a man is walking through a dark alley and witnesses a rape and kills the abuser in the ensuing struggle should he be slandered with the same terminology given to the man who kills someone in that same dark alley because he saw the man slinging 20s as the club? I would sure disagree if you said yes. Or does your problem with the two different words pertain to the military? In that you find a man killing another man in defense of his country as little different than the man in the alley trying to steal a mans wallet?
Yes, we should. We should also put random implications into someone else's statement, when they were never there.
And, you're completely right.
I wasn't planning on dragging this out, but I guess I'll bite.
It's not a matter of perspective. I understand what you're trying to say, but the two things are not the same, and it's not really up to interpretation. Terrorists specifically and intentionally target/attack/kill/brutalize innocents in the name of their sick and intolerant cause. Do you really think this is the same thing with America? Of course America has harmed innocents here and there as well, but that is not their purpose. They aren't intentionally going around targeting and brutalizing innocent people for the purpose of spreading fear. I don't know how you can honestly sit here and say that the U.S. military is one in the same as terrorism. The actions are not the same, nor is the purpose behind those actions. Targeting and harming innocent people is not a shared agenda between the two. It's not as if the U.S. decides to go out and harm "x" number of innocent people to push their cause (which is actually one of peace, freedom, democracy, ect...)
Honestly this whole thing is a rather strawman type of argument to the original point you were responding to anyway, unless you were intentionally trying to go off on a tangent.
Is that in response to me asking if we should oust all words meaning nearly the same thing but are in fact different? From what I understand the oriental languages do this much more than English. Perhaps you should learn and only speak that language if it satiates your desires for less descriptive speech?
By all means, elaborate.
Wait, what? About what exactly? Most of what I said required answers to be complete thoughts.
Perhaps you shouldn't tell me what to do?
"We should also put random implications into someone else's statement, when they were never there." By this statement I meant that I haven't proposed to oust all the different meanings of certain words or statements, but you seem to imply that I did.
Yes, I do agree that killing self-defense is different to a cold-blooded murder. Yes, I do agree that soldiers killing while on active service, i.e. in wars or conflicts, don't do the same as the murdering scum does. If that isn't enough, I'm afraid there isn't much else say.
Murder vs. Killing is a specific differentiation between two different types of a person taking another person's life. Therefore it makes no sense to get rid of it.
I dont remember telling you to do it. Notice the use of the word "perhaps". It was just some advice. If you found the numerous ways to say slightly different, but different, things annoying to the point you want to disregard the meaning of those words to be interchangeable then perhaps you would prefer a language where this actually occurs? I'll try to be less helpful from now on I guess.
I already talked about this. Actually it consisted of the majority of my first paragraph. "It seems only fair when you are more than willing to do it to one pair. That would leave not only a bland language, but one less efficacious also." Meaning that if you want to disregard the meaning of the first pair we talked about because (to quote you) "Because I guess I can't accept the fact that semantics and vocabulary definition are used to differentiate effectively the same thing." Which means you can't accept different words and their definitions differentiate slightly different, but different, things.
So then why do you find it wrong or incorrect or irrelevant (to list a few possibilities as to why) to separate the soldiers and the good Samaritans from those "murdering scum"? It's seems a small price to pay to keep the scum and the not-scum slightly separated. I know I would hate to be equated to a fucking serial killer for saving a life or something.
Anyways. It's been an interesting conversation. Until next time.
I didn't propose to get rid of it, just in case. Never did.
I'm fine with using English to converse with people, so "advising" me to use language that I would supposedly be more comfortable with is simply rude. You're hardly being "helpful". I agree that I might have been wrong with stubbornly refusing to accept the difference between the words, but this doesn't mean I've been trying to disregard them. If "being less helpful" is going to stop you from making assumptions about my intentions, by all means.
I admit that I was wrong with my statements, however, I don't want to disregard their meaning, alright? My point was that both terms referred to taking a life, and I found the fact that they're differentiated like that to be strange. And, yeah, as strange to you as it may be, I actually can accept different meanings of words. I know that this point will likely cause more argument, but, by all means.
I don't, not anymore, at least. I gave it some thought and decided that taking a life can be different in a variety of cases. So, I do apologize for dragging this on.
No, it wasn't.
I believe that from the perspective of them that it looks the same, or close enough to the same to be thought of as justification. Did you know when we first entered Iraq that the number of enemy militants increased exponentially? We couldn't figure out how we were killing them, yet their numbers kept rising. As it turns out the number of innocents we had killed had spurred the growth of people willing to lay down their lives to ward off the evil invaders. The ones trying to push their agenda on the populace through horrible acts like bombing and shooting masses of innocents. Later we recognized this sign and set out in measures to prevent the deaths of innocents and limit the backlash from the population. Not because we were good or righteous but because it was threatening us. And making our goal, our agenda that much harder to accomplish. Which, by the way, was hardly the "spread democracy, free the people, provide them peace" agenda the media leads the people to believe. If you honestly follow that train of thought then this is a pointless venture and you can go back to living the blissful style. As I said earlier the lower levels have good guy goals to reach, the other side of the coin is nothing of the like. They are much more alike than you will ever see from the inside looking out.
From our perspective the milky way looks nothing like the galaxies we see from the hubble telescope.
No you proposed a personal nullification of the meaning.
If a person is using a flat pillow and says they don't like it is it rude to tell the person that there are other pillows in the cabinet?
Should I link the definiton of "disregard" and apply it to you purposefully ignoring the definiton of the two words, then trying to justify your reasoning for not sperating the two meaning by your own accord with faulty reasoning? When you're vague about your reasoning, or you're reasoning leaves much or everything to be desired, how do you expect me to make the connections if not through assumptions and critical thinking?
Oh, come now. Even if you didn't enjoy it it was definitely interesting.
P.S. I do apologize. I get in trolly moods sometimes, and this was one of them. Have a good Christmas
A "personal nullification" implies that I "nullified" it for myself, hence "personal". Then what is (or rather, was, since I'm no longer doing that) the problem? Do I force my "nullification" on you or anyone else in here?
I'm sorry, did I imply I don't like the entirety of English language by dismissing a pair of words with similar definitions? The better analogy of your statement would be this: a person says they don't like a flat pillow, and you propose they change their entire bed, just because the pillow is supposedly uncomfortable.
No, the Almighty One, I happen to know to the definition of that word. Apply it wherever you want, though.
I don't expect you do anything, really. I wasn't planning on arguing with you, but, apparently, my plans have changed. I'm not planning to argue with you about my reasoning being "faulty" or not, it may as well have been.
No, it wasn't.
Should I give a damn? Have whatever Christmas you desire, and keep your wishes to yourself.
Actually asshole, I don't have as much free time as you to be on this site 24/7 writing fucking essays explaining things to hypocrites. Also, I don't feel like it.
No, you're a hypocrite for supporting killing people for killing other people, does that make any sense to you? It's hypocritical anyway you look at it. Everything about you is a contradiction.
Calm down.
We also kill germs, viruses, animals, and whatever else that kills people. You remove the bad apples to prevent the bunch from spoiling.
Who gave you all the right to decide who deserves to live and die? Who gave you all the right to pick and choose the definition of "good" and when it applies to you? I don't even know any of you, why would I respect you, especially hypocrites.
Discussion, coercion, intriguing, curiosity, wonder and amazement at the thought process. Take your pick. Also, because you were wrong. Had you taken it upon yourself to differentiate your personal gripe with the two words meaning roughly the same thing instead.....
You know what, I'm not going to keep stringing you along. From your last two sentences in your post it's obvious you can't handle this situation with a sense of poise, and I don't want to add to your ill will or distemperment. I'll be the one to walk away so that you can calm yourself. Again I apologize for riling you, I didn't realize you would attack the hook with such ferocity.
Adieu.
I admit that I was wrong. I'd continue my line of thought, but I already did previously. Yes, those two words mean different things, and I stubbornly refused to agree that they do.
I also admit that I've lost my temper, and for that I apologize. I should have handled it in a more mature manner, but my emotions made me act rashly. I do apologize sincerely for that. Even if I disagreed with you, I should have handled it with more cool.
The hook, eh? Were you trying to bait me, then? I guess you've managed to do that just fine, but, if that wasn't your intention, I apologize for assuming.
I'll leave this quote by Winston Churchill, though:
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught."
Auf Wiedersehen.
There is a difference between incidental casualties and actually going into a place with the intention and purpose of targeting and massacring groups of innocents. I don't think you could possibly be thinking about this in a more black and white sort of way. If the military was over there intentionally targeting and massacring the innocent population, there would be outrage. Just because innocent people have died in both scenarios does not mean the two are equatable. No doubt the U.S. Army has looked the other way at times when their methods have resulted in civilian casualties, but this highly differs from terrorists actually having the goal and intention of taking innocent lives. It highly differs from cutting an innocent man's head off on camera and putting it out there for the world to see, just for the sake of sending a message. To quote Tinni from above: "We should always put the safety of our citizens above others. Putting other countries before ours, and acting like martyrs does not keep us safe from the enemy. Again, America is not intentionally going around taking innocent hostages and beheading them on camera(something that terrorists have done in the last couple weeks mind you), the military doesn't carry out violence out of the malice in their hearts. It is done out of necessity to protect our people."
Argue about the ethics if you want (or don't, because we're massively off topic as it is), but there is no way on earth that you can equate the United States military to terrorists.
Excuse me for sounding idealistic, but I do refuse to believe that there are zero feelings of this among our leadership. Obviously these things aren't actually why we went into Iraq. I was speaking more to the country's ideals simply to contrast to what we see from actual terrorists.
Anyway, this topic isn't meant as a discussion for justifying America's actions over in the middle east. I really don't know that I want to further discuss this, as it is totally warped from the actual original point you were arguing against. Regardless of whether or not you find justification in America's actions, that doesn't hurt the logic behind Tinni's reasoning in dealing with terrorists. It's not as if America should be like: "You know what, we aren't exactly saints either, so I guess we'll level with you guys/downplay our response and not deal with you like we actually know that we should". What point were you trying to make? Were you just randomly tossing an aside in there?
All are innocent until proven guilty.
That being said, I'd like to see more of the death penalty. It shows criminals we arent going to stand for their shit. Take that away and what would stop a criminal from killing an entire family or raping someone? Trust me, the fear of death stops someone better than anything else.
And as for the 'life sentence' - fuck that. It cost way to much to keep them in a cell. If they get a life sentence, their life should be cut short.
And for the cost of the death penalty, the way they do it is way to expensive, you know how much those Chemicals cost? A lot. Now compare that to the price of a bullet. Or if you want to go even cheaper, go get some rope and a tree.
Sorry lad, but I don't think anything anyone here said is going to kill anyone. All i suppose were doing is spewing what we believe, and that's not going to dictate whether someones going to live or die.
I believe that corporal punishment is like the stockades and flogins, on a lower level of would be stuff like switching.
The best thing about rope and a tree is that you can reuse them. Talk about cost effective.
Maybe I can redeem myself here,
I didn't exactly mean everything I said. The death penalty isn't the best solution. Its just. I don't know how to explain what I feel about it. Its kinda like ' its a necessary evil' I don't like to think about it and I don't like that I don't think about it, lots of people that do t deserve it die because a flaw in our judiciary system. Please don't hold anything I said against me.
I think they need to legalize Marijuana.
It isn't a pleasant topic, and I don't blame you for not wanting to dwell on it. It is, as you said, basically just a necessary evil.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Oh hey, it's you again.
Hi.
Everything about is a contradiction?
With all due respect, if you have never met me in person, nor spent considerable time around me in person, how can you possibly know that to be true?
You have to spend considerable time with a man, before you truly know who and what he is as a person.
And also, executing someone who has murdered another person, is called justice.
And justice is balanced.
I'm not even going to bother trying to reason with a comment like that. Clearly you have no tolerance or respect for anyone unless they agree with exactly what you say.
So we should throw away any decency and make convicted criminals feel agony before they die?
Thank you for elaborating more on that section of my post, you explained it very well. I'm a bit surprised that it even needed elaborating in the first place though, I thought it was pretty straightforward..
No prob. I just kind of felt bad that your comprehension abilities were being questioned when the issue was actually the other way around. I thought you were perfectly clear in what you said. Just thought I would try and clear things up with the guy a little
lol It happens. Sometimes two people are just so drastically on the opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to a certain topic that it is difficult to force them on to the same page. Which is why I kind of opted out towards the end, we weren't going to find any common ground. But thanks anyway, I will admit I was more snarky than usual, and probably could have been more patient, or explained things more clearly as you had. I just cannot stand it when I hear someone talk badly about the military, especially when those are the people who put their lives on the line to protect us, they get their hands dirty so we don't have to. I have the utmost respect for soldiers because of their sacrifices. And then to see them being compared to Terrorists? I was just seething at that point.
Yeah, that's understandable, I was a little annoyed as well. I didn't really even want to get into it, it just kinda happened. I just wanted to give my quick little clarification and then walk away... but that never really works out lol.
Viva is a good guy though. I find it kind of odd that he isn't on the same page here.