[WikiEN-l] murder versus kill

[Harry Smith]

--- "S. Vertigo" <sewev at yahoo.com> wrote:

> No, its not about emotional undertone. "Murder"
> means
> "wrongful immoral killing"; as in the Commandment
> "Thou shall do no murder" usually misstated as "thou
> shalt not kill"  This is the meaning of the word.

S Vertigo is correct on this point.  I didnt want to
bring this up lest we have folks who are not aware of
this and a new diversionary arguments begins on this
point.

> So why not just use the word murder in its general
> sense? I agree its tempting to call all such
> killings
> "murders" but nobody asks that we do so
> even-handedly
> accross all topics for all non-accidental killing
> (suicide, abortion, excecution, missile strikes,
> collateral damage,), except for a very small number
> of
> very strange people.

Murder has an intentional aspect.  

Collateral damage is not murder for that reason, just
as manslaughter is not murder.

Missile strikes either hit the target populated by
enemy combatants or become collateral damage, unless
the intention is to target civilian populations. 
(this addresses both Major H. Schmidt and Qassam
rocket attacks.  One can reach their own conclusions
regarding Dresden. Thank God I was not issued that
order.)

Suicide is considered self-murder in a number of
societies. Unlike other murders, I dont know of any
that impose the death penalty for it however.   

Execution is not "without lawful excuse" unless we are
talking about the recent beheadings (murders) in Iraq
regarding which the perpetrators prefer execution to
murder.

Abortion is an issue about which numerous
well-intentioned, well-respected individuals disagree.

> Im tempted myself, but the use
> of
> the term carries a disruptive POV element (local pov
> vs other) that without other reason justifies its
> disinclusion.
>

Example and further elucidation, please.
 
> > Killing the enemy in time of war is an effective
> > means of preventing your comrades and yourself
> from
> being killed.  This distinction is important.
> 
> But this can also be a soldiers rationalization,
> where
> "enemy" can mean almost anyone (notice how some
> creeps
> use the phrase "enemies, foreign 'and domestic?'"
> Domestic enemies?  So, now we must "be vigilant" and
> keep watch out for "domestic enemies," eh? (Rebel
> scum?)  To pull apart your little statement, if an
> "enemy" is, say, a whole race of people, is their
> mass
> killing murder? 

Foreign enemies are often, not always, identified by
uniform.  Domestic enemies are the province of law
enforcement agencies rather than the military, unless
during a state of emergency or an incident located on
military property.

> To say that its "not technically a
> crime called murder"; that would be simple avoidance
> and denial of the issue. People in denail about
> something cant or wont really participate in the
> discussion.
> 

Killing in war is not murder.  Neither technically nor
ethically.  

War, disagreements, fights in kindergarden, require
only one party to initiate. We all learned this many
years ago. Once initiated the other party(ies) must
decide how to respond.  To refrain from responding,
seems hold out the possibility of veering in the realm
of self-murder.

S. Vertigo,

Do I misread your message....it almost seemed, seemed
to have a hint of baiting others in it.  Please tell
me that I am mistaken.

All,

My original questions seem to remain unanswered though
we have started to discussed some of them:

My question is do we use the term murder for this
shooting or do we change the wikipedia article on
murder?

seems to be a question of wikipedia using its own
definitions for words at wikipedia.

is this type of internal consistency valuable?

if it is not should we make that known?

is using the term murder according to the wikipedia
definition POV?

Sincerely,

Lance6Wins



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail