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(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Harry Smith <lance6wins(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.