Pro-Choice arguments.

[Wiztopia]

It does. Murder is a legal term.

Not exclusively, as evidenced by the fact that people commonly use it in clearly non-legal contexts.

They are still using the definition wrong.

[Bluth Corporation]

Not exclusively, as evidenced by the fact that people commonly use it in clearly non-legal contexts.

They are still using the definition wrong.

How so?

Remember, dictionaries aren't definitive. They're only there to help you figure out what someone probably means when you see someone else use a word--but they won't always cover every possible usage of every word. Sometimes they're simply incomplete, and leave out certain senses that are less common than others. Sometimes the meaning of the word has changed, however subtly, and the dictionary does not reflect that.

Dictionaries are for readers and listeners, as an imperfect guide to offer assistance in understanding someone, but they don't produce perfect results. They certainly don't dictate to speakers and writers how they must use a word.

Just because a dictionary doesn't cover a particular usage does not mean that that usage "wrong." Perhaps the dictionary editors simply missed it, or judged it not common enough to include based on space constraints. Or perhaps the speaker or writer is using it in a novel sense, which is perfectly legitimate, and not at all "wrong" if he can make the idea or emotion he wishes to convey clear to his readers or listeners.--and if it catches on enough, perhaps later the dictionary will reflect it. Or perhaps not.

[Wiztopia]

They are still using the definition wrong.

How so?

Remember, dictionaries aren't definitive. They're only there to help you figure out what someone probably means when you see someone else use a word--but they won't always cover every possible usage of every word. Sometimes they're simply incomplete, and leave out certain senses that are less common than others. Sometimes the meaning of the word has changed, however subtly, and the dictionary does not reflect that.

Dictionaries are for readers and listeners, as an imperfect guide to offer assistance in understanding someone, but they don't produce perfect results. They certainly don't dictate to speakers and writers how they must use a word.

Just because a dictionary doesn't cover a particular usage does not mean that that usage "wrong." Perhaps the dictionary editors simply missed it, or judged it not common enough to include based on space constraints. Or perhaps the speaker or listener is using it in a novel sense, which is perfectly legitimate, and not at all "wrong"--and if it catches on enough, perhaps later the dictionary will reflect it. Or perhaps not.

You have to have malice aforethought in order for it to be murder. That is both the legal and regular dictionary definition of murder. So they are using it wrong. A person cannot call abortion murder because they would be 100% wrong no matter what.

[Bluth Corporation]

How so?

Remember, dictionaries aren't definitive. They're only there to help you figure out what someone probably means when you see someone else use a word--but they won't always cover every possible usage of every word. Sometimes they're simply incomplete, and leave out certain senses that are less common than others. Sometimes the meaning of the word has changed, however subtly, and the dictionary does not reflect that.

Dictionaries are for readers and listeners, as an imperfect guide to offer assistance in understanding someone, but they don't produce perfect results. They certainly don't dictate to speakers and writers how they must use a word.

Just because a dictionary doesn't cover a particular usage does not mean that that usage "wrong." Perhaps the dictionary editors simply missed it, or judged it not common enough to include based on space constraints. Or perhaps the speaker or listener is using it in a novel sense, which is perfectly legitimate, and not at all "wrong"--and if it catches on enough, perhaps later the dictionary will reflect it. Or perhaps not.

You have to have malice aforethought in order for it to be murder. That is both the legal and regular dictionary definition of murder.

Perhaps there's another sense that the dictionary editors missed, though.

So they are using it wrong.

Not matching up perfectly with the dictionary definition does not make a particular usage of a word wrong. I suspect you didn't actually read my above post. Dictionaries are not definitive. They are references for readers, to help a reader figure out what someone might probably mean when he uses a word--but they're not absolutely reliable. They certainly don't dictate to writers how they must use a word.

[Wiztopia]

You have to have malice aforethought in order for it to be murder. That is both the legal and regular dictionary definition of murder.

Perhaps there's another sense that the dictionary editors missed, though.

So they are using it wrong.

Not matching up perfectly with the dictionary definition does not make a particular usage of a word wrong. I suspect you didn't actually read my above post. Dictionaries are not definitive. They are references for readers, to help a reader figure out what someone might probably mean when he uses a word--but they're not absolutely reliable. They certainly don't dictate to writers how they must use a word.

It doesn't matter. Abortion is not murder and never will be murder. People who say so are usually morons who just hump their bibles and make up bullshit that the bible even mentions abortion. Abortion is not murder no matter how you put it. Morally, ethically, dictionary, legal, etc. Anybody who says so is just plain 100% wrong.

[Salandriagado]

It does. Murder is a legal term.

Not exclusively, as evidenced by the fact that people commonly use it in clearly non-legal contexts.

People commonly use the word "Christian" to refer to what you call "Paulinism". Far more than use your definition, in fact. Does that mean their definition is valid? Prescriptivist or not, pick one or the other, but at least be consistent.

[The Germania Alliance]

Nope its an undeniable fact. You have to have malice aforethought in order to be murder.

Lol, right. That's why people face murder charges every day in fatal DUI crashes, when there was no "malice aforethought." In fact, people are murdered every day due to stabbings and gunshot wounds, without "malice aforethought." It's called "second-degree murder." Before you jump to your books to defend your definitions to the death, you should learn exactly what you're defending.

[Wiztopia]

Nope its an undeniable fact. You have to have malice aforethought in order to be murder.

Lol, right. That's why people face murder charges every day in fatal DUI crashes, when there was no "malice aforethought." In fact, people are murdered every day due to stabbings and gunshot wounds, without "malice aforethought." It's called "second-degree murder." Before you jump to your books to defend your definitions to the death, you should learn exactly what you're defending.

No person who has ever killed somebody drunk driving has been arrested for murder. You actually don't know what you are talking about. Second degree murder is still malice aforethought because they want to kill the person.

[Ceannairceach]

Lol, right. That's why people face murder charges every day in fatal DUI crashes, when there was no "malice aforethought." In fact, people are murdered every day due to stabbings and gunshot wounds, without "malice aforethought." It's called "second-degree murder." Before you jump to your books to defend your definitions to the death, you should learn exactly what you're defending.

No person who has ever killed somebody drunk driving has been arrested for murder. You actually don't know what you are talking about. Second degree murder is still malice aforethought because they want to kill the person.

Eh, you're wrong there. Some people who kill someone, even without malice afterthought, may be arrested on the charge of second or first degree murder depending on the severity of the crime, but this is usually based on a technicality.

[Bluth Corporation]

No person who has ever killed somebody drunk driving has been arrested for murder.

I don't know what charges they initially arrested him on, but he was certainly convicted of second-degree murder.

[The Germania Alliance]

Lol, right. That's why people face murder charges every day in fatal DUI crashes, when there was no "malice aforethought." In fact, people are murdered every day due to stabbings and gunshot wounds, without "malice aforethought." It's called "second-degree murder." Before you jump to your books to defend your definitions to the death, you should learn exactly what you're defending.

No person who has ever killed somebody drunk driving has been arrested for murder. You actually don't know what you are talking about. Second degree murder is still malice aforethought because they want to kill the person.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Arrested+for+DUI+murder

Second-degree murder is a catchall category that encompasses "all other kinds of murders" that do not qualify as first-degree murder or felony-murder. Although second-degree murder is a hodgepodge of numerous types of murder, it can be divided into three basic categories: 1) purposeful killing without premeditation, 2) implied malice murder, or 3) inherently dangerous felony-murder.

There is no "malice aforethought if the murder isn't premeditated. Learn your facts.

[Bluth Corporation]

No person who has ever killed somebody drunk driving has been arrested for murder. You actually don't know what you are talking about. Second degree murder is still malice aforethought because they want to kill the person.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Arrested+for+DUI+murder

Second-degree murder is a catchall category that encompasses "all other kinds of murders" that do not qualify as first-degree murder or felony-murder. Although second-degree murder is a hodgepodge of numerous types of murder, it can be divided into three basic categories: 1) purposeful killing without premeditation, 2) implied malice murder, or 3) inherently dangerous felony-murder.

There is no "malice aforethought if the murder isn't premeditated. Learn your facts.

In law? Of course.

Though as I understand it, in US law that phrase has largely been abandoned anyway, so the whole thing is irrelevant.

[The Germania Alliance]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Arrested+for+DUI+murder



There is no "malice aforethought if the murder isn't premeditated. Learn your facts.

In law? Of course.

Though as I understand it, in US law that phrase has largely been abandoned anyway, so the whole thing is irrelevant.

Sadly it has been.

[Wiztopia]

No person who has ever killed somebody drunk driving has been arrested for murder. You actually don't know what you are talking about. Second degree murder is still malice aforethought because they want to kill the person.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Arrested+for+DUI+murder

Second-degree murder is a catchall category that encompasses "all other kinds of murders" that do not qualify as first-degree murder or felony-murder. Although second-degree murder is a hodgepodge of numerous types of murder, it can be divided into three basic categories: 1) purposeful killing without premeditation, 2) implied malice murder, or 3) inherently dangerous felony-murder.

There is no "malice aforethought if the murder isn't premeditated. Learn your facts.

DUI deaths are manslaughter. Even if they were "charged" with murder the murder charges would be dropped. Malice means you intend to harm somebody even if you're not thinking about it. It can either be manslaughter or second degree murder. Either way malice is involved and you are completely wrong about this. Your opinion that abortion is murder is completely wrong.

[The Germania Alliance]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Arrested+for+DUI+murder



There is no "malice aforethought if the murder isn't premeditated. Learn your facts.

DUI deaths are manslaughter. Even if they were "charged" with murder the murder charges would be dropped. Malice means you intend to harm somebody even if you're not thinking about it. It can either be manslaughter or second degree murder. Either way malice is involved and you are completely wrong about this. Your opinion that abortion is murder is completely wrong.

That's why 1) people are actually convicted of murder in fatal DUI crashes, and 2) I am legally entitled to believe whatever I want, even if you still believe in not-so-definitive-definitions.

[Bluth Corporation]

DUI deaths are manslaughter. Even if they were "charged" with murder the murder charges would be dropped.

Not everywhere, apparently, as the link I posted above demonstrates.

[Ceannairceach]

2) I am legally entitled to believe whatever I want, even if you still believe in not-so-definitive-definitions.

You indeed are, but you are not entitled to freedom from criticism of your opinion.

[The Germania Alliance]

2) I am legally entitled to believe whatever I want, even if you still believe in not-so-definitive-definitions.

You indeed are, but you are not entitled to freedom from criticism of your opinion.

And I never said I wasn't.

[Ceannairceach]

You indeed are, but you are not entitled to freedom from criticism of your opinion.

And I never said I wasn't.

Your unneeded response to his calling your opinion wrong suggested you believe such.

[The Germania Alliance]

And I never said I wasn't.

Your unneeded response to his calling your opinion wrong suggested you believe such.

Nope.

[Ceannairceach]

Your unneeded response to his calling your opinion wrong suggested you believe such.

Nope.

Well, then, no need to get defensive when someone voices their opinion on your opinion.

[The Rich Port]

Oh, I thought you meant " a lack of ETHICS".

Nvm.

They don't have a lack of ethics either.

Yes there is, it's just negligible so as to almost not exist.

[The Germania Alliance]

Nope.

Well, then, no need to get defensive when someone voices their opinion on your opinion.

And vice-versa, there wasn't a need for him/her to voice disagreement with my opinion. Still, you're right.

[Ceannairceach]

Well, then, no need to get defensive when someone voices their opinion on your opinion.

And vice-versa, there wasn't a need for him/her to voice disagreement with my opinion. Still, you're right.

What? Yes their was. This is a debate; He debated. But, you pointing out left and right that you have the right to your opinion proves nothing, does nothing, and is nothing in this debate.

[The Germania Alliance]

And vice-versa, there wasn't a need for him/her to voice disagreement with my opinion. Still, you're right.

What? Yes their was. This is a debate; He debated. But, you pointing out left and right that you have the right to your opinion proves nothing, does nothing, and is nothing in this debate.

So there was no need for me to voice my opinion, but a need for him to voice his?