Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

western culture seems very lenient in terms of label-placing and how far said labels stray from their definitions.

example 1: the most common and glaring is "abortion murder" as demonstrated by pro-lifers and "meat is murder" animal rights activists. this would be an example of the grossest distortion since 'murder' is a term of law, not morality. so 'murder' is completely irrelevant as well as incorrect.

example 2: remember how tosh was bombarded with hate mail after his infamous rape joke/troll on an audience member and was labeled a "rape apologist". considering he never spoke out in defense of any particular rapist or even all rapists, its a complete distortion of meaning. yet progressives and feminists seem comfortable freely placing this label on those who indulge in tasteless humor.

example 3: some inaccurate labels are used to point out an obviously malicious motive, like "holocaust denier". a typical 'denier' trolls by diminishing the jewish holocaust via insisting that it wasn't uniquely significant. "lots of people were systematically killed, not just jews". the point is that the term "holocaust denier" is inaccurate. most intellectual western people seem ok with this form of distortion, though. perhaps for lack of a better description.

do you feel that this distortion of terms should be accepted by default when a large enough group identify with it? if not, do you ever find it permissible, and if so why? or do you feel that this social trend should be stamped out utterly?

'Murder' is not necessarily a term of law. It has been used plenty of times in history to judge acts that were deemed legal in their jurisdiction. The English language reflects popular perception, and that popular perception is often that murder as a concept conforms primarily to a moral dimension.

Dictionaries change to conform to usage. The OED already simply lists 'the action or an act of killing' as murder's primary definition, leaving the legal term as a secondary, and one of its other definitions is:

'The action of killing or causing destruction of life, regarded as wicked and morally reprehensible irrespective of its legality', the use of the word in this manner being able to be tracked back long before murder was used in a legal definition.

I've seen this habit on the boards before of insisting the 'murder' is a legal term, but this has never been true.

As to your question- English language always been driven and defined by social pressure. So yes, that process is fine. The definitions you cling to that you criticise others for trying to re-define most likely never had fixed form and have already been redfined by such a process over time.

Murders are often legally referred to as cases of "Manslaughter" when there are extraneous circumstances.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The OED already simply lists 'the action or an act of killing' as murder's primary definition, leaving the legal term as a secondary, and one of its other definitions is:

'The action of killing or causing destruction of life, regarded as wicked and morally reprehensible irrespective of its legality', the use of the word in this manner being able to be tracked back long before murder was used in a legal definition.

by the first definition PETA is correct i suppose. even the act of swatting a fly is murder.

however in a debate over whether something should be illegal because it fits the definition of "murder", then the legal term is whats relevant, correct?

Regarding "murder"; That's circular though. They may be somewhat careless with their language, but there are two ways you could interpret it positively if you were so inclined. One you could say they are exaggerating on purpose, drawing on a similarity to shake up conventional interpretations and get people on their side or two they could be saying it "should be classified as murder", since you are speaking of whether or not something should be illegal, that seems to be a perfectly valid (albeit ****ing stupid in both cases) request.


Also, lol

Originally posted by focus4chumps
by the first definition PETA is correct i suppose. even the act of swatting a fly is murder.

however in a debate over whether something should be illegal because it fits the definition of "murder", then the legal term is whats relevant, correct?

It is linguistically possible to apply the term that way, yes. That makes whether you agree with its usage in such a way a moral judgement.

And likewise, someone could simply make the argument that what is morally wrong should be legally wrong.

Language is inherently descriptive, it means what it is generally understood to mean. When there is no general understanding we can be more specific. I think murder is a good example of a place where there is a lack of agreement about what the word means.

There is a legal definition for murder; why someone can go on trial for the act and why there are penal codes and penalties for someone convicted of the act. I believe this is what f4c is referring to when a prolifer or PETA member screams "murderer" when someone has an abortion or eats a hamburger.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if that legal definition varies from country to country.

Indeed there is a legal definition for murder, though as I just noted, the OED does not consider it the primary definition, merely a specific (though highly significant) use.

I would argue- though I have no research to hand- that actually there is a general consensus about the term. I think the average person takes it to mean 'immoral killing'.

That was its original usage, incidentally- killing someone in an underhand, immoral way, as opposed to just cutting them down face to face, which would still be completely illegal but not considered murder. It always had a moral connection.

does it not make reasoning on the issue of murder and law a wasted venture, when its permissible for one side to apply a non-legal definition so broad it can be applied to fishing?

Perhaps. You must decide for yourself what arguments you'd like to be part of.

im referring more to public discourse in effecting/avoiding new legislation, rather than my own argued points on a movie forum.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/murder?q=murder

also i cant find a single definition which does not include law (unless using the slang "murder" as in "traffic was murder today"

whats silly is i need to pay a subscription to see definitions at oed.com.

Well, I do have access to the OED, and their research into both historical and current usage is exceptionally thorough (funded in part by those subs- it's not a casual publication but the world's foremost centre of lexicography). Their analysis of the word is very clear, complete with an additional editorial note about its historical origin, which I mentioned above.

If you want to talk about murder in a legal sense, that's fine. But your original post was attacking people for using it in a moral rather than legal sense. I was pointing out that, both on grounds of how language works and on the basis of linguistic analysis of usage- popular and historical- they are justified in using it in such a way.

Obviously what someone thinks is or is not murder is not going to change how a murder trial works- that is the nature of law- but your examples are from very different circumstances. Personally, as I think new legislation at least takes moral matters into account, that makes that sort of approach to the term very relevant.

your point is well taken on my inaccurate wording of the first scenario. should have simply read:

example 1: the most common and glaring is "abortion should be illegal because its murder" as demonstrated by pro-lifers and "meat is murder" animal rights activists.

however permitting all definitions of murder to be part of a matters of legislation or other legal matters would be lunacy.

As for example 1, the word 'murder' defines abortion as an illegal action rather than immoral one,, in some way it works better in preventing abortion behavior. Just to bring it under the protection of law.

not sure if bot

This thread seems to answer itself /finished?