As Senate Bill Dies, President Trump, Mitch McConnell Call for Clean Repeal of Obamacare Now, Replacement Later

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, IAMX said:

So people must use alternate words because some random person on the internet cannot fathom a word, that has far more non-legal definitions than legal, being potentially used in a non-legal context..

 

Whew, this is bad.

When discussing the killing of a person, murder has only one definition and that is the unlawful killing of a person.

 

We aren't talking about a murder of crows, or murdering a pizza. There aren't "far more" non-legal definitions when talking about killing. It has one. It is what makes "Murdering a person" different from "Killing a person". They aren't the same and should not be used interchangeably. 

Edited July 19, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

When discussing the killing of a person, murder has only one definition and that is the unlawful killing of a person.

 

We aren't talking about a murder of crows, or murdering a pizza. There aren't "far more" non-legal definitions when talking about killing. It has one. It is what makes "Murdering a person" different from "Killing a person". They aren't the same and should not be used interchangeably. 

I wish you the best of luck in your efforts to language police people. Spoiler alert though: you won't get very far.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IAMX said:

I wish you the best of luck in your efforts to language police people. Spoiler alert though: you won't get very far.

Yes unfortunately the bucket is quite large, especially in America. Our obsession with "freedom" makes people feel like they can do whatever they want and make up random when it reality it just makes them look stupid.

 

Of course I can't "make" people use words correctly. However, people who willfully use words incorrectly don't do themselves any favours. Just makes them look less educated and intelligent. It's a pretty common joke in the UK about American's general inability to properly use the language. It's a well justified joke.

[IAMX 3,055]

9 minutes ago, bcking said:

Yes unfortunately the bucket is quite large, especially in America. Our obsession with "freedom" makes people feel like they can do whatever they want and make up random when it reality it just makes them look stupid.

 

Of course I can't "make" people use words correctly. However, people who willfully use words incorrectly don't do themselves any favours. Just makes them look less educated and intelligent. It's a pretty common joke in the UK about American's general inability to properly use the language. It's a well justified joke.

Anyone who suggests a word, least of all one with a multitude of definitions, is used "incorrectly" doesn't understand language. If someone understands what you're talking about, honestly the word is irrelevant. Do you ever communicate with people who are ESL? I can already imagine your overreaction to it. Clearly the concept of language evades you, so it's funny that you look down upon others for your perceived lack of intelligence on their part when that's the very thing you've displayed here with a religious-like approach to language -- it's simply not how the world works. Anyways, this seems like an issue for you to solve at your own pace.

Edited July 19, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Anyone who suggests a word, least of all one with a multitude of definitions, is used "incorrectly" doesn't understand language. If someone understands what you're talking about, honestly the word is irrelevan. Do you ever communicate with people who are ESL? I can already imagine your overreaction to it. Clearly the concept of language evades you, so it's funny that you look down upon others for your perceived lack of intelligence on their part when that's the very thing you've displayed here with a religious-like approach to language -- it's simply not how the world works. Anyways, this seems like an issue for you to solve at your own pace.

You continue to harp on the "multitude of definitions", when there is only one reasonable definition that can be used in the sentence that this entire discussion is referencing.

 

Words have multiple definitions because they have multiple uses and meanings. That is NOT an excuse for using a specific use/meaning incorrectly. Just because murder means a number of things, doesn't mean you can use one single definition (the unlawful killing of a person) incorrectly. If you don't want to make any assumptions about legality, you say the person was killed. You don't say murdered.

 

 "The concept of language evades me" is funny considering I am trying to argue for standards and structure in language, which is partly the whole point of having language and having set definitions. 

 

I communicate with ESL people all the time and help them learn to use specific words properly. Most ESL people I know would PREFER us to have stricter definitions for the English language because they tend to find it a horrible "hodge podge" without any clear definitions. Most hate how Americans use English because we butcher it, we make up things and we use things incorrectly all the time. It is primarily for people who are ESL that we should have more structure and use our language more clearly.

 

EDIT: As you mentioned this is going nowhere. I'll just add it to the list of situations where this forum has made me feel sad for my fellow Americans. Christmas parties in England are hard because honestly sometimes I can't even defend Americans. Politically for sure, but even just our basic level of education which seems to be deteriorating rapidly. 

Edited July 19, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

You continue to harp on the "multitude of definitions", when there is only one reasonable definition that can be used in the sentence that this entire discussion is referencing.

 

Words have multiple definitions because they have multiple uses and meanings. That is NOT an excuse for using a specific use/meaning incorrectly. Just because murder means a number of things, doesn't mean you can use one single definition (the unlawful killing of a person) incorrectly. If you don't want to make any assumptions about legality, you say the person was killed. You don't say murdered.

 

 "The concept of language evades me" is funny considering I am trying to argue for standards and structure in language, which is partly the whole point of having language and having set definitions. 

 

I communicate with ESL people all the time and help them learn to use specific words properly. Most ESL people I know would PREFER us to have stricter definitions for the English language because they tend to find it a horrible "hodge podge" without any clear definitions. Most hate how Americans use English because we butcher it, we make up things and we use things incorrectly all the time. It is primarily for people who are ESL that we should have more structure and use our language more clearly.

 

EDIT: As you mentioned this is going nowhere. I'll just add it to the list of situations where this forum has made me feel sad for my fellow Americans.

The standards and structure you desire is not for the English language that's in the US. In fact, the way you complain is how I see bitter old people from the UK complain about Americans -- they're especially prevalent in Canada for some reason, but pretty much exclusively in those who overtly seem very unsociable. It's well carved in US culture for words to have open meaning, and the intent to be what the person delivers it to be (caters to the melting pot concept since US English derives from many other languages and constantly changes).. any religious-like approach where a person thinks there is only one definition or one meaning in the way someone else communicates, has obviously missed the point, as you so adeptly illustrated here.

 

Usually I avoid this kind of debate, but this one is just too good to pass up. Given all the various contexts of English words, it's strange that this is the one that sets you off.

 

"I could murder this sandwich"

"You're using this word wrong, it's kill!"

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

38 minutes ago, bcking said:

You continue to harp on the "multitude of definitions", when there is only one reasonable definition that can be used in the sentence that this entire discussion is referencing.

 

Words have multiple definitions because they have multiple uses and meanings. That is NOT an excuse for using a specific use/meaning incorrectly. Just because murder means a number of things, doesn't mean you can use one single definition (the unlawful killing of a person) incorrectly. If you don't want to make any assumptions about legality, you say the person was killed. You don't say murdered.

 

 "The concept of language evades me" is funny considering I am trying to argue for standards and structure in language, which is partly the whole point of having language and having set definitions. 

 

I communicate with ESL people all the time and help them learn to use specific words properly. Most ESL people I know would PREFER us to have stricter definitions for the English language because they tend to find it a horrible "hodge podge" without any clear definitions. Most hate how Americans use English because we butcher it, we make up things and we use things incorrectly all the time. It is primarily for people who are ESL that we should have more structure and use our language more clearly.

 

EDIT: As you mentioned this is going nowhere. I'll just add it to the list of situations where this forum has made me feel sad for my fellow Americans. Christmas parties in England are hard because honestly sometimes I can't even defend Americans. Politically for sure, but even just our basic level of education which seems to be deteriorating rapidly. 

 

This entire discussion on abortion is simply a distraction and a red herring, because if you are to look at the facts, the GOP failed their constituents for 7 years, but then they could blame Obama for all the problems in the world. Now that the GOP has all the houses under control, they can't pass a bill, because after 7 years they could only come up with a garbage. It's no wonder that their supporters are all discombobulated and looking for something else to discuss. If they were to discuss the real argument around the failure of this administration, they wouldn't have much to go with. Deflection becomes the natural option. Grief manifests itself in several stages. Eventually, some will emerge on the other side accepting the failure of their options. I predict the next distraction will involve Hillary, in one form or another.

Edited July 19, 2017 by CaliCat

[jg121783 3,915]

Wow almost two pages of debate over my use of the word "murder" in a post. To clarify what I meant is from the viewpoint of someone who opposes abortion (including myself) it is murder (unless it is medically necessary to save the mother's life). I should have made that more clear.

 

1 hour ago, CaliCat said:

 

That debunks the myth that taxpayers are funding abortions. In any case, the point is moot.

 

How so?

 

1 hour ago, CaliCat said:

Abortions are legal, and should be available to any woman looking for the procedure.

 

That's all well and good but why should tax payers have to pay for someone who wants to abandon their responsibility from poor choice?

 

1 hour ago, CaliCat said:

 

Furthermore, if you are against abortions, by all means don't have one. 

 

Shouldn't you have the choice of not funding one also?

 

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

Gotta help those poor unwilling mothers.. you know, since everyone else helped them get pregnant to begin with, I guess that's everyone elses fault too. No end to the entitlement attitude. I'd love to see every single abortion provider that uses taxpayer money criminally liable. If that means irresponsible women go the route of back alley abortions like the days of yore, so be it.. tired of these people thinking that their dumb choices are society's responsibility to fix.

There are a few cases such as rape or medical necessity to save the mother's life where I could see an argument for abortion. Other than that it is simply a matter of someone running from the consequences of poor choices and killing a human being in the process. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

5 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Shouldn't you have the choice of not funding one also?

 

There are a few cases such as rape or medical necessity to save the mother's life where I could see an argument for abortion. Other than that it is simply a matter of someone running from the consequences of poor choices and killing a human being in the process. 

 

Yes, you do. Just don't pay taxes, if you don't like the way they are being used. 

 

It's a matter of a personal decision. A legal one at that, your opinion notwithstanding. 

Edited July 19, 2017 by CaliCat

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Wow almost two pages of debate over my use of the word "murder" in a post. To clarify what I meant is from the viewpoint of someone who opposes abortion (including myself) it is murder (unless it is medically necessary to save the mother's life). I should have made that more clear.

 

From your viewpoint it is killing, not murder. That was the whole point of this debate.

 

You don't get to decide what is murder. Murder isn't a "viewpoint". In this context it very much has a legal meaning. 

 

You believe it is killing. That's okay and you can believe that. Established medical opinion disagrees with you, but you are free to believe it. Believing it is murder doesn't change the fact that it is not actually murder. That is a fact as our laws are currently written.

 

36 minutes ago, IAMX said:

The standards and structure you desire is not for the English language that's in the US. In fact, the way you complain is how I see bitter old people from the UK complain about Americans -- they're especially prevalent in Canada for some reason, but pretty much exclusively in those who overtly seem very unsociable. It's well carved in US culture for words to have open meaning, and the intent to be what the person delivers it to be (caters to the melting pot concept since US English derives from many other languages and constantly changes).. any religious-like approach where a person thinks there is only one definition or one meaning in the way someone else communicates, has obviously missed the point, as you so adeptly illustrated here.

 

Usually I avoid this kind of debate, but this one is just too good to pass up. Given all the various contexts of English words, it's strange that this is the one that sets you off.

 

"I could murder this sandwich"

"You're using this word wrong, it's kill!"

 

After all this I find it hilarious the example you choose to use "Murder this sandwich" is actually a perfectly find alternate definition for the word murder.

 

As I pointed out earlier I sure hope JG didn't intend to say he would eat babies.

 

Just shows how fruitless this has been unfortunately. Flying way over your head I guess.

[jg121783 3,915]

6 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Yes, you do. Just don't pay taxes, if you don't like the way they are being used. 

 

It's a matter of a personal decision. A legal one at that, your opinion notwithstanding. 

Or we can have legislation changed to change the way tax dollars are used. Choosing between paying to have a baby killed or having your house swat teamed then being hauled off to prison isn't much of a choice.

[jg121783 3,915]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

From your viewpoint it is killing, not murder. That was the whole point of this debate.

 

You don't get to decide what is murder. Murder isn't a "viewpoint". In this context it very much has a legal meaning. 

 

Your argument is that the word "murder" describes an illegal act. My opinion is that abortion should be illegal therefore I can have the opinion that abortion is murder.

 

1 minute ago, bcking said:

 

You believe it is killing. That's okay and you can believe that. Established medical opinion disagrees with you, but you are free to believe it. Believing it is murder doesn't change the fact that it is not actually murder. That is a fact as our laws are currently written.

 

Use of the word "murder" can be debated in regards to abortion. There is no room for debate on the word "killing" though. If they are not killing a baby when performing an abortion what exactly is it they are doing to the baby?

 

kill¹

kil/

verb

 

1. 1.

   cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

   "her father was killed in a car crash"

   synonyms:

   murder, take/end the life of, assassinate, eliminate, terminate, dispatch, finish off, put to death, execute;

[CaliCat 3,957]

12 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Or we can have legislation changed to change the way tax dollars are used. Choosing between paying to have a baby killed or having your house swat teamed then being hauled off to prison isn't much of a choice.

 

Or you can adapt to the laws of the country where you chose to live. 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

I see Trump is now threatening Heller like the schoolyard bully he is. Most people would think he was joking but he wasn't.

Funny how his ire appears to only be on Heller and not the other half of dozen or so Senators who are against it.

Susan Collins of Maine in particular has been against this right from the start pretty much and not a word of threat, defiance or opposition for her vote.

[jg121783 3,915]

8 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Or you can adapt to the laws of the country where you chose to live. 

The laws of the country where I live can be changed through the legislative process and the laws of the country where I live allow me to exercise my free speech to compel legislators to change unjust laws. I have adapted very well to the laws of the country where I live.