HOME | DD
NewtonianNocturn β You can't
Published: 2010-12-07 22:03:54 +0000 UTC; Views: 4270; Favourites: 104; Downloads: 20
Redirect to original
Description
[mur-der]βnoun
1.
Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
This may seem like a small thing, but it isnβt. Using the word murder to classify the unlawful killing of animals is just another way to blur the crucial distinction between us and animals. Animals can be abused, but killing them isn't murder.
Related content
Comments: 149
I never claimed otherwise.
π: 0 β©: 0
If I had a dime for every illogical assumption reached by people trying to invalidate my arguments via appeals to morality and emotion, I'd have seven dollars.
π: 0 β©: 1
...okay dokey, mate. That's totally not appropriate. I didn't even make that outrageous of a claim, but you definitely disrespected me, and the entire scientific community on that one. I don't care if you just know that much about the subject, or you are just ignorant to the facts that are in the field that I am an expert on, but come on. Don't bullshit the fact that I know more about this than you do. Just come straight and say you don't know what you're talking about, and we'll be cool.
Seriously? This is fucking bullshit, you shouldn't get so riled up about such trivial things, but if you do, you're a fucking faggot. Go home and make love to your fucking real doll. You don't know shit about what we're talking about and you need to fucking leave this thread right now. Buy a bullet and rent a gun, because sir, you are finished in life.
π: 0 β©: 1
>Don't get riles up bro.
>posts outlandishly unreasoned and unsupported rhetoric in an attempt to invalidate a sarcastic comment.
You, sir, need to back away from the keyboard and reevaluate some life decisions.
π: 0 β©: 1
Fuck it you know what?
No more Mr. Nice Guy, I come to this deviation and I post so that you think someone gives a damn about your stupid worthless so called "life" well this is the end of the fucking line. From now on I'm gonna make your deviantART life a living hell and you cant do anything about it except burn, and if someone comes to put the fire out ill tear them down like a tree limb by limb just like I did you.
π: 0 β©: 2
You have fun with that; however, it'll very hard to make my "deviantart life" hell, especially when it doesn't exist. You're either a very poor troll, or an exceedingly pathetic individual. I'm going with troll because I have some faith left that people as unconscionable as you only exist at the fringes of radicalism.
π: 0 β©: 1
Can't I be both?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh I knew that.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think this is falely represented. You only use the noun part of the definition of murder.
Not the verb part which is NOT specie-specific. Based on the verb categorization it
actually is indeed possible to murder an animal if you are slaughtering it inhumanely.
For example, tying it down and skinning it slowly while alive, conscious, and not anesthetized would be murder.
(noun) 1.Law. The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S. definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought characterized by deliberation or premeditation.
((verb-used with object)) 1. To kill or slaughter inhumanely or barbarously.
π: 0 β©: 1
I think this is falely represented. You only use the noun part of the definition of murder.
Indeed I did, because that is what I am addressing. The term is far too misused, and is now tossed about like awesome and epic. It isn't murder to kill a non-human animal: The stamp probably should have read that; however, such a simple concept is more easily conveyed in a short sentence.
And arguing about subjective adejectives is just boring.
π: 0 β©: 1
And yet I just proved that by its definition
killing an animal can be murder.
I agree that it isn't murder in every
sense, in every case. But it is sometimes.
You can't use a definition subjectively
to accomplish a point when something else
in the definition refutes it.
That's like saying you can only use the word "too"
to mean "in addition to" even though the definition
says it can mean "very much" "to an excessive extent"
or "certainly, indeed"
π: 0 β©: 1
You can't use a definition subjectively
to accomplish a point when something else
in the definition refutes it.
But, the part that "refutes" my point is for the verb usage of the word, which is subjective. Barbarous and inhumane treatment varies depending on who you ask.
Trying to equate it to "too" isn't very effective because "too" performs the same part in all its uses(its definition is based on context).
Again, bad wording in the stamp, but my point still stands: It isn't murder to kill an animal.
π: 0 β©: 1
I respectfully disagree with you.
I also wasn't using "too" in reference to your stamp
It was because I just had that same discussion a few
days ago and felt it relevent to my point here
π: 0 β©: 0
...you have brought me to a new light.
π: 0 β©: 1
so taking the life of an animal with malicious aforethought, deliberation or premeditation is not considered murder? I know there are sick people out there who like to kill animals just for the funsies. Those people usually become serial killers and kill PEOPLE later. Yes it is murder.
π: 0 β©: 2
[mur-der]
βnoun
1.
Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
π: 0 β©: 0
so taking the life of an animal with malicious aforethought, deliberation or premeditation is not considered murder?
Yes.
I know there are sick people out there who like to kill animals just for the funsies. Those people usually become serial killers and kill PEOPLE later.
Or, you know, U.S. presidents. Theodore Roosevelt, you might have heard of him.
Yes it is murder.
No.
π: 0 β©: 1
you think premeditated killing of an animal is not murder? That directly contradicts your argument.
π: 0 β©: 1
Premeditated killing of a human is murder. Premeditated killing of an animal is lunch.
π: 0 β©: 1
so you'd eat the corpse of a six-week-old kitten that's been tormented to death?
π: 0 β©: 2
Whatever dust you're snorting pass it over bro.
π: 0 β©: 2
I'm perfectly sober thank you. -_-
π: 0 β©: 0
Where exactly do you draw your conclusion from? Your leaps in logic are pretty fucking retarded.
π: 0 β©: 1
how is it a leap in logic? You said killing an animal is lunch. So it seems you're saying killing any animal, humanely or inhumanely, is simply a meal to fill your stomach.
π: 0 β©: 1
how is it a leap in logic? You said killing an animal is lunch.
Because you obviously did not get the intended humor. Good lord, how dense are you?
So it seems you're saying killing any animal, humanely or inhumanely, is simply a meal to fill your stomach.
Well, when a hunter kills, it is to feed themselves; whatever motives they have don't concern me. Poachers kill specifically for fur and the like. If I killed a cat, I'd probably eat it, or use it to fertilize a garden.
π: 0 β©: 0
yea something can, if an animal kills another XD
π: 0 β©: 1
That's still only killing.
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow the flame war this stamp has made
π: 0 β©: 1
You have seen nothin till you've seen Paramore's version. She gets more butthurt on one stamp than I do in my whole gallery.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes, but non-human animals are not covered under the definition of murder. As such, you can't murder a cat, or moose.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, it is still the same ACT. Changing the word doesn't change the act.
But the word murder is indeed mostly applied to humans only.
Just like the word "humans" is used to seperate us from other animals, the word "murder" is used to show or a human had been killed.
But we're still animals. And the act still narrows down the same though.
The word murder is only used to make sure it is one of our own that had been killed. At least... that is how it is used on the moment. In the past they also didn't use the word "murder" for killing women or slaves. The defenition keeps changing. In some countries they still don't think it is murder when you kill a gay for example. But actually it is.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, it is still the same ACT. Changing the word doesn't change the act.
We've already been through this. Changing the word does indeed change the act. As the act is defined by the word. Killing a person with malice and forethought is murder, killing an animal with malice and forethought is Animal Cruelty.
But the word murder is indeed mostly applied to humans only.
Just like the word "humans" is used to seperate us from other animals, the word "murder" is used to show or a human had been killed.
It's only applied to humans. We are humans, calling ourselves wolves is wrong, as is calling a wolf a human.
And no, murder is not used to show that human has died. It is used when one human kills another, with malice and forethought. Accidentally hitting a person with a car is not murder, it is manslaughter.
In the past they also didn't use the word "murder" for killing women or slaves.
They did for women. As killing your own slave wasn't not punishable, however it was still murder. This was changed as of the Civil War, when killing anyone, black or white, became punishable
The defenition keeps changing. In some countries they still don't think it is murder when you kill a gay for example. But actually it is.
[CITATION NEEDED]
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah see over here, we could include animals using the rules of language in statutory interpretation Β¬_Β¬ But yeah, I see your point.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not a law student, but Ejusdem generis, which is a part of statutory interpretation, would lead us to the opposite of what you're suggesting.
π: 0 β©: 1
I dont think it will (unless I have them mixed up) or its usi ng the literal rule...sorry I'm not great. But yeah, one of the latin ways will make it include animals. xD
π: 0 β©: 0
1murΒ·der noun \ΛmΙr-dΙr\
Definition of MURDER
1
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
According to Mirriam Webster, which is possibly the most recognized dictionary throughout North America.
perΒ·son noun \ΛpΙr-sΙn\
Definition of PERSON
6
: one that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
An animal is subject to rights, such as abuse and killing inhumanely. Therefore, through semantics, it is quite possible for an animal to be murdered. Everything gets killed, who gives a shit what word is used?
π: 0 β©: 2
Animals are not subject to our laws; i.e. a dog that kills someone can not be charged with murder. Ergo they are not subject to our rights, and have no civil duties. As such killing one, under the law, is not murder.
π: 0 β©: 1
They have rights not to be killed. They're protected by the law. Just because they aren't charged with a degree of murder, doesn't mean that they can't be murdered or murder someone. But as I said, these are semantics, so we can argue this to the death.
π: 0 β©: 1
They have rights not to be killed.
No, they don't.
They're protected by the law.
Only endangered species are protected by law.
Just because they aren't charged with a degree of murder, doesn't mean that they can't be murdered or murder someone.
This doesn't make sense; animals can not commit murder.
But as I said, these are semantics, so we can argue this to the death.
This is next to the very core of the Animal Rights debate; which is an asinine argument. Animals Welfare, however, is a different story.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>