On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:12:38 GMT, Mike Vandeman <
[email protected]>
wrote:
>.>.Murder is a legal term. .> .>Nonsense. It is also just a word in the English language. You can't
>legislate .>English, just for your own convenience. . .I agree completely. Here's the definition
>from www.dictionary.com . ."The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with
>.premeditated malice."
>
>A dictionary is a compromise, and is based on usage. It doesn't include every legitimate use of a
>word, because it would be too expensive to find them all.
Fine...now that I've documented that I'm using the term correctly, all you have to do is the same.
Please show that the term "murder" applies to the killing of a non-human animal.
Please note that simply asserting it doesn't accomplish this.
>.>I never said you could. That's irelevant. It's still murder. . .Not according to: . .1) The law
>.2) The dictionary
>
>YOUR dictionary. MINE includes all "persons", which can include animals.
Your dictionary defines animals as "persons"? Which dictionary are you using?
>
>.3) The overwhelming majority of people
>
>This is not a matter for a vote.
Well...yes it is, actually. We live in a democratic republic. As such, the law is defined by people
we elect (and the people they appoint).
All you have to do to change the law is get people elected who agree with you (good luck).
>
>.I just cited who agrees with me. . .Who agrees with you?
>
>Who cares? It's still murder.
Ah, so virtually *no one* agrees with you. You simply assert that it's murder.
Well, I can say that killing a kumquat is murder. Who are you to say that I'm wrong?
>.You don't *need* proof to kill a non-human animal.
>
>But you DO, to convince people that it was just. It wasn't. .Are you asserting that "people" don't
>think that killing the mountain .lion in question was just? I'd be shocked to learn that more than
>5% .of people in general disagreed with killing this cat.
>
>Who cares? I don't think this is a popularity contest.
You said that to kill a non-human animal, you needed to "convice people that it was just" (your
words). That means it *is* a popularity contest.
>
>.Still, I'm willing to be persuaded. By all means, please cite .evidence that a substantial number
>of people disagree with the killing .of this cat.
>
>100% of the email I got on the subject supported my stance. See
>
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/fanmail.htm.
A half dozen emails to an econut (none of which are even signed!) constitute a "substantial number
of people"? Puh-leeze.
>.>.Human remains were found in the stomach of the cat...seems to me he .>.was right...wasn't he? .>
>.>Right that the lion ate a human, but not right in killing it. . .Ah, so he *was* right in
>concluding that the cat was a mankiller.
>
>If you say so. I didn't see the evidence.
You just admitted that the lion ate a human! ("Right that the lion ate a human, but not right in
killing it.")
>That still doesn't make the killing justified. It's still murder.
Again, you seem to be the only one saying so.
No, wait...there are those unsigned emails!
>.>The Justice Department isn't even fair to HUMANS, much less wildlife. . .If you truly feel that
>way, it must fill you with despair.
>
>Nope, because I do my part to fix it.
And just what are you doing to fix the Justice Department?
>
>.What do you plan to do about it (beyond trolling on rec.bicycles.soc)?
>
>The same thing I do about everything else.
And that would be....?
>
>.>.What laws created by non-humans do you suggest we follow? .> .>The Endangered Species Act (the
>spirit, as well as the letter). . .The Endangered Species Act (letter and spirit) was authored by
>.non-humans? Fascinating!
>
>Sorry, I didn't read that carefully.
Fair enough. I'll repeat the question: What laws created by non-humans do you suggest we follow?
>."(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no civil penalty .shall be imposed if it can
>be shown by a preponderance of the evidence .that the defendant committed an act based on a good
>faith belief that .he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her .family, or
>any other individual from bodily harm, from any endangered .or threatened species." . .In other
>words, it's just peachy to kill *any* endangered animal if .it's done to protect humans. So by all
>means, please enforce the ESA.
>
>The lion wasn't threatening anyone.
I suspect the person that it ate would disagree. Hard to ask them, of course, since they're dead.
> It was trying to eat its kill.
Yes, it was. A *human* kill.
>.Intriguing...tell me, what should the penalty be for catching a fish .and eating it?
>
>Whatever the fish choose.
And how, exactly, do you propose that we find out what penalty trout want imposed on fishermen?
>
>.BTW...does killing *any* animal qualify as murder? Specifically, .what about an insect?
>
>Of course, as long as it's not self-defense.
>
>.A germ? . .A virus?
>
>Yep.
I can only assume, then, that you consider someone who takes antibiotics to be guilty of genocide.
Am I correct?
>.Actually, execution is by definition the killing of a *human*.
>
>Not according to the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=execution "The act or an instance of putting to death or
being put to death as a lawful penalty."
The lion was not (as you so helpfully pointed out) accused of a crime, found guilty, or sentenced.
It was simply killed. To argue that it was executed, you'd have to define eating a carrot as
"executing" the carrot.
>.>.Who, *specifically*, has described the cat as a "murderer"? .> .>It is implied by the way we
>talk about it, regardless of what words they use. . .Ah, so you *can't* cite a single instance.
>Good of you to admit it. . .Let me get this straight: you're saying that people imply things
>.through the use of words... but that the words used are irrelevant?
>
>I didn't say that. Not everything implied by a sentence is spelled out. That's why it's called
>"implication".
Granted, you can imply something through the tone of one's voice...but you've stated that people
imply that when a mountain lion eats a human, that they consider it to be a murderer. You surely can
come up with a few examples, then!
Well?
>
>.Don't make me look up the definition of the word "imply". I've got a .dictionary and I'm not
>afraid to use it!
>
>But you were apparently afraid to look up "execution", because you got it wrong.
Incorrect. See above.
>
>.One last question: who's your favorite movie character?
>
>I don't have one. I don't see that many movies. Besides, they are fictitious.
You aren't interested in fiction? How....odd.
>
>.I'm guessing that it's Vizzini. Am I right?
>
>Who's that?
A character in the movie, "The Princess Bride" (a wonderful movie!). When something happens that he
didn't expect, he always says "Inconceivable!" After 4 or 5 times, another character says, "You
keeping using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Great stuff...
Doug
