Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination right now.

[5yrup]

(08-03-2013 02:59 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 02:36 PM)5yrup Wrote:  We agree on everything but the definition of murder.

What I am stating is your definition of murder is not the proper definition of murder. It is using the term in an abstract manner, expanding the definition of the term to include all acts of violence that lead to death. This makes it an appeal to emotion (logical fallacy), because you're connecting the emotions one feels when we hear "murder" to the rather fucked up job that the military is required to carry out -- fighting and killing other combatants over specific objectives.


If anything, the proper term to use in this debate would be unjustified killing and/or manslaughter. The specific term used means a lot in this debate.

Yes, killing is bad and I don't agree with it. I just get picky over terms used to describe it.

Did you not read what I said?

By using the term "specific", I was definitely not being "abstract" or implying that I expanding it, especially to that extent you described, i.e., to "include all acts of violence that lead to death".

And like I said, "appeal to emotion" is a nonsensical concept. Appealing to a person's emotion can be done with a valid argument, same as it can with an invalid one. Whether, or not, it is an emotional argument, is irrelevant to the validity. If any thing, it's simply a distracting concept.

But, beyond that, I wasn't even arguing it, in the way you described, in general, or having to do with "job that the military is required to carry out -- fighting and killing other combatants".

Not all killing is bad (immoral), and thus I use murder to distinguish. If there is a better term, or a correct one, used to distinguish between types of killing, in a moral sense, because I know murder is also used and defined in accordance with laws, let me know, I've actually been wondering. If not, I'll stick with using murder, as that tends to be what, from my experience, people use to distinguish killing they see as wrong, or bad, versus other killings.

My point would be that certain killings, still have a commonality making them immoral, even if they are justified, either philosophical or by law. I used murder as the word. If there is a more accurate word to use, let me know.

I think we will simply have to agree to disagree on this aspect, considering I provided two alternatives to "murder" to use.



Appeals to emotion matter a lot in debate. A properly argued point doesn't appeal to any emotion, it uses logic and facts. In any scored debate, you have points deducted for making any emotional argument (or employing other fallacies). Only between politicians do appeals to emotion, authority, etc. hold sway. They really shouldn't.

[TrulyX]

(08-03-2013 03:08 PM)5yrup Wrote:  I think we will simply have to agree to disagree on this aspect, considering I provided two alternatives to "murder" to use.



Appeals to emotion matter a lot in debate. A properly argued point doesn't appeal to any emotion, it uses logic and facts. In any scored debate, you have points deducted for making any emotional argument (or employing other fallacies). Only between politicians do appeals to emotion, authority, etc. hold sway. They really shouldn't.

Those words weren't applicable to what I was describing, and that is why I explained again.

I don't know about what we are disagreeing, beyond "appeal to emotion" being bullshit, which is definitely way off the topic, but I'm fine with ending the discussion.

[bbeljefe]

"I refuted your statement that it didn't change murder. Legally, it does change whether or not it's murder."

I'm not interested in how a murderer defines murder.