[WikiEN-l] Viajero/Zero and Lance6 - POV terms

Wed Jul 28 19:49:59 UTC 2004

S Vertigo,

If I read your message correctly, and I might not
language being the poor method of communication that
we  have.

You appear to be saying that words are difficult,
"tricky".

That murder is locally defined, which might be the
case.  Though I dont see why the local definition
criterion should be limited to murder.  Please lets
stay on an even keel about this...there have been
governments that have legalized actions that later
have  been widely characterized as murder.  Indeed 20
century Europe offers examples of this.  Is Wikipedia
to adopt the local definition in these examples?  We
might argue that the local definition has changed
since then, but then could we describe the acts as
murder if they were not locally defined such at the
time?

Sincerely,
Lance6Wins

--- "S. Vertigo" <sewev at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Harry Smith <lance6wins at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > with regard to calling an act murder.  The common
> > definition of murder and the definition that
> appears
> > in wikipedia is: Murder is the crime of
> intentionally causing the death of another human
> being, without lawful excuse.
> 
> Exactly - though the word excuse doesnt work well.
> Better to say 'without lawful reason,' or cause.
> Excuse already implies a defiance of an existing
> law.
> Keep in mind now that "law" is also a tricky word;
> human law requires context, or juristiction. So,
> according to a local variety of "law," it's "murder"
> to do that here, but if youre over there, 'go right
> ahead.' Is this act called "murder" in Palestine? I
> dont know. But even if it was, its a very close
> call.
> I would say that its not our place to pass
> judgement;
> that if "murder" is the judgment of a local "law"
> for
> an event, then we can report that.
> 
> > If we accept this definition, then we need to ask
> if
> > the individuals that shot the boy had lawful
> excuse.
> 
> There is no lawful excuse for murder. "Murder" is a
> term which carries a meaning of wrongfulness, while
> other terms are used for killings which are
> "justified," or "lawful." Is murder the term
> generally
> used for cases of "collateral damage" or
> "assassination" or "targeted bombing?" etc. etc.
> While
> I agree that its valid to 'call a spade a spade,'
> having any pretense of a consistent general policy
> would require a preference for the use terms that do
> not carry such a judgement. 
> 
> The reason is that these terms just dont work in an
> international discussion context, because 'just
> cause'
> is always an issue of POV, unless the "law" we are
> all
> talking about is in place, active, global, and
> applicable equally. Currently neutrality is the only
> such law, othet than the law of force; sometimes
> called 'tyranny,' juristiction by 'right of might'
> is
> very weak, IMHO, if there are mechanisms and means
> by
> which people are free to communicate clearly.
> 
> 'Cerely
> S
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. 
http://messenger.yahoo.com