[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

This statement really makes no sense. You reply to people who insult you but not to those who describe you?

Makes no sense? Yet, you seem to understand what I am saying perfectly so I'm not sure why you say it makes no sense.

Yes, I do not respond to someone who simply describes me and does not add anything to the discussion by doing so. On the other hand, if someone directly insults me I choose to respond, usually by asking them to refrain from insulting me.

How does that not make sense? Or do you mean you don't understand why I would choose to act that way? If that is what you mean, that is entirely different and perhaps that is what you should say.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I love how you stack all the "Try to"'s in order to make your example seem more dramatic.
So, you aren't allowed to be "personal" but you are allowed to give silly dichotomies like this in order to force me to choose the former? Kudos.

Yes, I believe one should not get personal in a discussion. One should debate the issue at hand. Do you disagree?

As for silly dichotomies, I stated you should choose any sort of thing you would not want to have happen to you. If you don't like my example choose anything else you like. That way you are not forced to choose from either of my "silly dichotomies". Fair enough?

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Anyway, first off, don't be silly: "murder" isn't an act that can be established, unless someone freely confesses to it (and you're certain he/she isn't covering for a spouse/sibling/child etc.) The term is already loaded with preconceptions about the reason why someone did it. (ie. for no good/selfish reason)
"murder in cold blood" is a statement lawyers use to convince juries; it's not descriptive of anything, apart from an accusation as to the psychological state of the person who acted it out. Which is, again, an accusation society makes in order to chastise the killer, or an accusation one person in society makes to convince the rest of the irredeemability of that person. It is, in itself, not an argument.
Similarly, "murder is wrong" is also as redundant as can be, and when used as an argument, circular. "Murder" already means "wrongful killing". Luckily, however, there is a legal system that forces the accuser to prove that the accused indeed had the intention, rather than just ascribing it to someone and hanging them before they can respond.

Seems to me you are playing semantics rather than simply answering. Arguing about what constitutes murder, arguing about the description given to it, arguing about whether or not it can be established. That's all beside the point and I think you know it.

Do you agree or disagree that murder is wrong? That there is no justification for murder? If so then there would be your absolute. If you don't want answer because it is one of my silly dichotomies then feel free not to as I don't really care about your answer, I'm asking so as to prompt you to think about the question.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Killing, on the other hand, is what you should be talking about. And "killing" is considered justifiable in so many scenarios. There's self-defense, there's just war, there's even "preemptive war", there's crimes of passion, etc. So yes, I can think of examples where killing would be justified, without being one of those scary psychopaths.

I did not use the example of killing because, as you say, there are many scenarios where killinig would be considered justifiable. That is precisely the reason I used the example of murder and tried to make the example as clear cut as possible. Whilst murdering someone does constitute killing them, killing someone on the other hand does not necessarily constitute murdering them. So why would I use as an example of an absolute something I do not think constitutes an absolute? That would be kind of silly don't you think?

So having hopefully cleared that up, can you think of any reason why someone murdering you for absolutely no reason whatsoever would not be considered a "wrong" act?

Cheers,
PKFFW