T1B

Not where infants specifically selected to be murdered by their own government are concerned, they're not.

Van wrote:Not where infants specifically selected to be murdered by their own government are concerned, they're not.

They're right about the intended meaning of the word kill as it's used in the 10 Commandments, and about how different cultures define murder. To the extent that governments make the rules, if a government sanctions or condones the killing of babies, by definition those killings are not murder. Disagree as vehemently as you like, but it doesn't change the facts.

If you want to get technical about the semantics of the 10 Commandments, killing a cockroach (not you, Roach) would be a cardinal sin. The Commandment does not explicitly limit kill to humans. But the reader is expected to understand that it applies only to humans, and further, that it applies only to the unlawful killing of humans. Again, if the killing is allowed by the government, it's not murder.

State-sanctioned murder is still murder, and selectively targeting infants from your own citizenry for killing is murder.

Dress up the semantics any way you wish. It won't change the fact.

Also, you're only guessing as to the intended purpose of the verbiage. You (or mvscal, or pop) don't know what the author's intent was in using any given word. You don't even know that those tablets ever existed, much less who may have authored them.

Since we're merely talking about fables here, it's all conjecture.

Van wrote:State-sanctioned murder is still murder

No, it's an oxymoron. There is no such thing as state-sanctioned murder. State-sanctioned killing? Yep. State-sanctioned homicide? Check. But no state-sanctioned murder. It's like dividing by zero.

selectively targeting infants from your own citizenry for killing is murder.

Says who? You? Have you published a dictionary that includes a different definition of murder than other dictionaries? For someone who's as much of a stickler for proper usage and the intricacies of language, I'm surprised you're so obviously on the wrong side of this argument. This one's easy.

Dress up the semantics any way you wish. It won't change the fact.

True. It won't change the fact that you're wrong.

Also, you're only guessing as to the intended purpose of the verbiage.

I'm comfortable with what I consider to be the intended purpose based on historical context and the research of linguists and biblical scholars (:softball:). Again, it's not that tough to arrive at the intended purpose.

You (or mvscal, or pop) don't know what the author's intent was in using any given word.

There is considerable debate about the intent & interpretation of MANY biblical passages. Outside of this thread, there's virtually NO debate about what is meant by the 6th Commandement. The Hebrew word (ratsach) and the Greek Word (phonenō) which are used in the 6th Commandment both clearly mean "murder."

You don't even know that those tablets ever existed, much less who may have authored them.

I don't have to. I just need to know that there is such thing as the 10 Commandments, and that someone wrote them. Their meaning, and to some degree the intent of the unknown author, can be ascertained through translation and interpretation without knowing the identity of the author.

Since we're merely talking about fables here, it's all conjecture.

Fables are subject to interpretation and translation, too. Their intended meanings can be determined with a high degree of certainty.

Their meaning, and to some degree the intent of the unknown author, can be ascertained through translation and interpretation without knowing the identity of the author.

No, they can't. That's impossible.

Hitler's regime committed murder, whether they proclaimed those killings "lawful" or not. There is no difference.

Dinsdale wrote:As to the thread title...

can I get a show of hands from anyone here who's forgotten 9/11?

Anyone?

Dins, the question is How Soon We Forget It Was An Inside Job. September the eleventh is the New Pearl Harbor Day, just like these guys wanted ...so badly.

We Came, We Saw, We Got Away With It

Whether grey or gray, they got away, didn't they? today, anyway.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
Dins, the question is How Soon We Forget It Was An Inside Job. September the eleventh is the New Pearl Harbor Day, just like these guys wanted ...so badly.

Still waiting on your 757 flight characteristics response.

Mikey wrote:So, I guess Jesus' teachings don't count.

Why would you say that?

Dinsdale wrote:If it was "forgotten," then by definition, there would be no "scaling back."

They're really not particularly complicated terms... really.

Let me back up a bit and explain myself a bit more thoroughly...

When I awoke one week ago today and was getting ready for work, I says to the wife "today is the 11th anniversary of 9/11" and her response was basically "so what it's really not a big deal anymore". That pissed me off and I told her "yes, it IS a BIG DEAL, it will always be a big deal". She backed off pretty quick, knowing she was wrong and not wanting to piss me off further.

Anyways, I go to work thinking about it still. I'm listening to the radio, nobody is talking about it. I get to work, nobody is talking about it. I log onto T1B at lunchtime, nobody has bothered to even start a fucking thread about it. I'm reading my newspaper and read the NY Times article.

ergo, the perhaps misnomer title of this thread. I know people haven't really forgotten about it but in many ways, they have. I can't. I won't. It still burns me up inside, worse than anything I've ever witnessed. I won't let people forget and lord willing, 10 years from now I'll still be reminding folks about it.

Left Seater wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
Dins, the question is How Soon We Forget It Was An Inside Job. September the eleventh is the New Pearl Harbor Day, just like these guys wanted ...so badly.

Still waiting on your 757 flight characteristics response.

Well, the characteristics of a 757 are to not completely disappear mysteriously when crashed into the ground or a building. A 757 is a large and complicated jet liner which cannot be flown by a novice with no previous training and experience. Additionally, it cannot be flown at full speed close to the ground. And whatever bullshit expertise you're pretending to front is a joke--just like the robot and his whole freak show (including PNAC--which is most of his prospective cabinet :twisted: )

Wake the fuck up you tedious puppet.

88 wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:A 757 is a large and complicated jet liner which cannot be flown by a novice with no previous training and experience. Additionally, it cannot be flown at full speed close to the ground. And whatever bullshit expertise you're pretending to front is a joke--

Please let us know what exactly full speed of a 757 is. Then let us know what full speed is at 20 feet. In order to make sure you fully understand please explain true airspeed, indicated speed, ground speed and mph.


88's link quotes a few great sources too:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/co ... 0274.shtml

pilot who flew this scenario in a 757 simulator wrote:"This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!"

Boeing 757 flight computer programer wrote:...consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator...they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown.

Left Seater wrote: Please let us know what exactly full speed of a 757 is.

Most pilots I know are not stupid enough to believe the official 9-11 story, but it has more to do with the cell phone part of the official 9-11 lie than ground effects or air speed. There are a few that realize how hard it would be to be low enough to hit the light poles and still hit the pentagon, but like I said most never even get their because of the cell phone lie.

I realize you are not as smart as the people I hang out with, but I would like to hear your take on the cell phone aspect.

88 wrote: You know, the guy who sits in the left seat in the cockpit of an airliner such as a Boeing 757. shtml

I thought he flew small planes.

Moving Sale wrote:

88 wrote: You know, the guy who sits in the left seat in the cockpit of an airliner such as a Boeing 757. shtml

I thought he flew small planes.

Well then you thought wrong there ankle biter. But here's a hint.. regardless of the size of aircraft......
principles of flight dynamics remain the same

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote: Please let us know what exactly full speed of a 757 is.

Most pilots I know are not stupid enough to believe the official 9-11 story, but it has more to do with the cell phone part of the official 9-11 lie than ground effects or air speed. There are a few that realize how hard it would be to be low enough to hit the light poles and still hit the pentagon, but like I said most never even get their because of the cell phone lie.

I realize you are not as smart as the people I hang out with, but I would like to hear your take on the cell phone aspect.

Wow, you must hang out with a ton of pilots then, because I know hundreds and very few if any of them subscribe to the "it is a government lie and fabrication."

As for "the cell phone lie" I am guessing you are talking about Barbara Olson. I don't know enough of the details regarding that specific situation to have an opinion.

As far as Cell technology and planes these are facts:

American Airlines had seat back phone installed on their 757 fleet in 2001.
These phones used cell style networks as the phones didn't work outside of the 48 states.
Gogo wifi today operates off of a similar style cell network (Row 44 uses a sat based system)
I have at times forgotten to turn my phone off and it will ring or get a text while in flight.
Many people refer to seat back phones as cell phones.


As far as 9/11 questions:

I know my phone rang on occasion while flying back in the early 2000s. Granted not nearly as often as today.
I didn't text then so I can't comment on that aspect.
AA started removing seat back phones in 2002 due to proliferation of cell phones.

As to specific cell phone lies on 9/11 I have no opinion since I am not aware of such controversies. I do believe that some families did receive calls from loved ones on the planes but I suspect most of those were from the seat back phones. I also believe that many likely said I am calling from the "cell phone in the plane" to describe the seat back phone.

Why don't you invite one of these pilot friends of yours to post here on the board. Better yet why don't you go check out one of the pilot forum boards and see what they think on the issue of a government lie and fabrication.

Van wrote:State-sanctioned murder is still murder, and selectively targeting infants from your own citizenry for killing is murder.

Dress up the semantics any way you wish. It won't change the fact.

Also, you're only guessing as to the intended purpose of the verbiage. You (or mvscal, or pop) don't know what the author's intent was in using any given word. You don't even know that those tablets ever existed, much less who may have authored them.

Since we're merely talking about fables here, it's all conjecture.

Van is 100 % correct here. No wiggle room for disagreement (sorry Smackie). The emphasis being that we are talking about a fable. There is no proof whatsoever that any of these events ever took place, therefore, it is a straw argument. Still entertaining though.

Hitler's regime committed murder, whether they proclaimed those killings "lawful" or not. There is no difference.

Again, correct. Though this time, the 'proof' is out there, so to speak.

mvscal wrote:

Jay in Phoenix wrote:All babies are innocent moron.

Who defines innocence and when did these alleged innocents become exempt from the consequences of their guardians' actions or nonactions? Certainly our own culture has no such value of universal innocence.

Are you as fucking stupid as well as you are wrong? Here's you're definition you twit, from Websters:

Definition of INNOCENCE:
1 a : freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil : blamelessness
b : chastity
c : freedom from legal guilt of a particular crime or offense
d (1) : freedom from guile or cunning : simplicity (2) : lack of worldly experience or sophistication
e : lack of knowledge : ignorance
2: one that is innocent

Please try to explain how any newborn does not fit within the parameters of this definition. You cannot be born with the guilt of your parenting or cultural lineage. This is flatly impossible. And to go the "original sin" card, as you are doing, exposes you yet again, as a closet, dyed-in-the-wool, born-again THUMPER! Hypocrite much mvsliar? And yes, our own culture absolutely has a value of universal innocence when it comes to babies. Just because you wish to ignore common sense, as well as the law doesn't detract or dismiss the argument. A baby, never has and never will be guilty of ANYTHING under the law, be it societal or otherwise. And don't try to go to the 'GOD' card here sporto...it doesn't suit you.

"For the sake of the Commandment, 'Thou shall not kill", manslaughter or homicide fall under the same bracket of "kill".

The command is 'Thou shall not murder,' you brainless streak of shit.

No, you brainless assclown, it isn't.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

3.Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

5 .Honour thy father and thy mother.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Thou shalt not covet.

Clear enough idiot? Straight from the proverbial legendary tablets themselves, dictated to Moses from God's pinkie.

Oh and just in case you thought you knew what the fuck you were talking about for a second, homicide isn't a crime. It's an adjective.

Wrong again. It's a noun. Per Websters:

ho·mi·cide
noun \ˈhä-mə-ˌsīd, ˈhō-\
Definition of HOMICIDE
1: a person who kills another
2: a killing of one human being by another.

I guess accuracy just isn't your strong suit, is it dumbfuck? And the act is still a crime. It's called manslaughter, and they have these things called "trials" about it all the time. You know, one of those annoying little legal, trivial thingies you like to get all hung up about.

Also, what we would term manslaughter or negligent homicide was considered a capital offense in the Bible.

Excellent job making my argument for me and making yourself look idiotic at the same time. Bravo. You just called manslaughter, aka-killing, a crime via the Bible. You need to stop now mvscal. Your humiliation is complete.

My case is that who or what you believe to be innocent is totally irrelevant. To enslaved, bronze age Israelites, baby Egyptians were fair game. Hell, baby Germans and Japanese were fair game just a few years ago in historical terms.

No, your case is a complete fallacy. You have by no means provided any example of how a baby can be not innocent. And to say that baby Egyptians, Japanese, Israelites, etc, are "fair game" is tantamount to putting on the itty-bitty Hitler 'stache, Swastika armband and black leather jackboots and prancing around in goosestep to the tune of "Die Fahne Hoch". I suppose 'Ich bin ein Nazi' is now your proud legacy too, in addition to your blatant racism.

Nice going fucktard.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:And the act is still a crime. It's called manslaughter, and they have these things called "trials" about it all the time. You know, one of those annoying little legal, trivial thingies you like to get all hung up about.

Murder is a crime. Manslaughter is a crime. Homicide isn't a crime. It is a cause of death.

You just called manslaughter, aka-killing, a crime via the Bible.

Wrong again, dumbfuck. Manslaughter is not "aka killing." How many fucking times does it have to hammered into your cock stuffed face?

No, your case is a complete fallacy. You have by no means provided any example of how a baby can be not innocent.

I have several times already. You are simply too stupid or too intellectually dishonest to recognize it. I'm going with too stupid since you haven't even grasped the fundamentals of the argument. I have no doubt at all that you will segue immediately into intellectual dishonesty in the highly unlikely event that you ever do get it.

The concept of 'Innocence' is not an absolute value shared identically by all cultures throughout time.

And to say that baby Egyptians, Japanese, Israelites, etc, are "fair game" is tantamount to putting on the itty-bitty Hitler 'stache, Swastika armband and black leather jackboots and prancing around in goosestep to the tune of "Die Fahne Hoch". I suppose 'Ich bin ein Nazi' is now your proud legacy too, in addition to your blatant racism.

Reciting historical facts makes one Hitler? Good job, you handwringing faggot. How does it feel to be too much of a sackless, gutless pussy to objectively examine history. Rather than face inconvenient truths, you deliberately distort what I said, play the Hitler card and then toss in the race card which has fuck all to do with anything.

You = bitch.

You are such an easily used tool. Once again, your hapless little scrotum scratchers just tapped out more inane gibberish. By example:

mvscal wrote:Murder is a crime. Manslaughter is a crime. Homicide isn't a crime. It is a cause of death. Wrong again, dumbfuck. Manslaughter is not "aka killing."

hom·i·cide/ˈhäməˌsīd
Noun:

The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.
The police department that deals with such crimes.

Homicide, as defined by the dictionary as well as law, is a crime and is murder. Stick that in your retarded pie-hole.

"You have by no means provided any example of how a baby can be not innocent."

I have several times already. You are simply too stupid or too intellectually dishonest to recognize it. I'm going with too stupid since you haven't even grasped the fundamentals of the argument. I have no doubt at all that you will segue immediately into intellectual dishonesty in the highly unlikely event that you ever do get it.

No, you haven't. You're simply making a statement, as foolish as it is. Now back it up with some facts. Prove, on any level, other than your pretense of fantasy, where a baby is NOT innocent of anything...other than being born. Show how a baby is guilty of its' parents sins. Or the sins of its' people. How is guilt attached via birth? If Hitler or Jeffrey Dhamer had a son or a daughter, would they be guilty of the crimes of their parents? Of course they wouldn't, except in your self-delusional world of spin. But hey, that is the world you love to live in, so go ahead and spin away, little top.

The concept of 'Innocence' is not an absolute value shared identically by all cultures throughout time.

I've already shown the definition of innocence, and it isn't a "concept". It's a noun and a fact. Trying to hide under the skirt of divergent "cultural values throughout time" does nothing to enhance your position, that of being on a cliff and ready to nose-dive into your own pitiful duplicity. You are innocent, or you are guilty. Any gray area in-between is for true justice to decide, of which you are not a representative. And you can time-skip to your black heart's content for validation of your argument...death is still death, murder is still murder, innocence is still and always will be, innocence, end of fucking story.

Reciting historical facts makes one Hitler? Good job, you handwringing faggot. How does it feel to be too much of a sackless, gutless pussy to objectively examine history. Rather than face inconvenient truths, you deliberately distort what I said, play the Hitler card and then toss in the race card which has fuck all to do with anything.

You = bitch.

No, reciting historical fact does not make one Hitler. Advocating the actions of murderers as justification of historical imperative, which you have done, DOES. The only ones distorting fact and history for their own inconvenient truth are you and Al Gore.

So how is that global warming treating you these days? Getting a little hot in here, isn't it you myopic turd.

You = liar, hypocrite, spinner, racist, hate-monger...and yes, BITCH.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Homicide, as defined by the dictionary as well as law, is a crime and is murder.

Wrong. Go ahead and cite the title and section of your state's law against 'homicide' and/or provide a link to anybody in the history of this country who has been convicted of this alleged crime of 'homicide.'

It shouldn't be too difficult unless, of course, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about in which case you might want to stock up on Snickers bars.

I've already shown the definition of innocence, and it isn't a "concept". It's a noun and a fact.

Of course it's a concept. Your definition of innocence is not the same as a bronze age Israelite or even a WW2 era bomber crew. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to grasp.

Trying to hide under the skirt of divergent "cultural values throughout time" does nothing to enhance your position, that of being on a cliff and ready to nose-dive into your own pitiful duplicity. You are innocent, or you are guilty. Any gray area in-between is for true justice to decide, of which you are not a representative. And you can time-skip to your black heart's content for validation of your argument...death is still death, murder is still murder, innocence is still and always will be, innocence, end of fucking story.

This doesn't even make any sense on any level. You're flailin, spinning, lying and distorting. It's pretty pathetic really. I expect you'll be crawling back under the rock you slimed your way out from under. That is the way of cunty little bitches like you.

Advocating the actions of murderers as justification of historical imperative, which you have done, DOES.

Strawman much, BITCH?

You = bitch + dumbfuck

Homicide

Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense.

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

The killing of one human being by the act or omission of another. The term applies to all such killings, whether criminal or not. Homicide is noncriminal in a number of situations, including deaths as the result of war and putting someone to death by the valid sentence of a court. Killing may also be legally justified or excused, as it is in cases of self-defense or when someone is killed by another person who is attempting to prevent a violent felony. Criminal homicide occurs when a person purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or with extreme negligence causes the death of another. Murder and manslaughter are examples of criminal homicide.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/homicide

In Wisconsin, you can be charged with "Homicide by Intoxicated Use of Vehicle". That's the law.

Goober McTuber wrote:In Wisconsin, you can be charged with "Homicide by Intoxicated Use of Vehicle". That's the law.

So?

Which part of homicide is a cause of death not a crime were you struggling to comprehend? I'd like to help.

Jay, not all homicides are crimes. Justifiable or excusable homicides exist, such as homicide in self-defense.

That being said, homicide can be a form of crime, not merely a cause of death. "Criminal homicide" sorta alludes specifically to this fact.

mvscal wrote:hammered into your cock stuffed face.

I laughed.

Jay wrote:your hapless little scrotum scratchers

I laughed again.

Van wrote:That being said, homicide can be a form of crime, not merely a cause of death.

You're still confused. Homicide is a cause of death which might also be a crime. Think it's the same? Think again. Precision in language is important and you can practice here if you'd like.

How do you suppose propaganda is written?

What I wrote was unassailable fact, so you were always going to fail in trying to correct it with a smarmy application of sheer redundancy.

It was a cute try, though. And hey, "scrofulous" was nice. Kudos.

Van wrote:What I wrote was unassailable fact,

Ah, yes of course. Facts are never subject spin are they? There is no way to present "unassailable fact" in such a way as to minimize it or even insinuate that it might not even be a fact? Homicide is not "merely" a cause of death. It is the cause of death. One person killed another person. Full stop.

Would you describe a massive heart attack as "not merely a cause of death"? Of course you wouldn't...unless you wanted to divert attention away from the heart attack.

The point was that homicides can be a crime (though they don't have to be), in addition to being the cause of death.

Fact, (fact), and fact.

And a massive heart attack is not merely a cause of death. It may not even kill the person. Sometimes it's just a massive heart attack.

See? Semantics are fun!

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Definition of INNOCENCE:
1 a : freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil : blamelessness

Please try to explain how any newborn does not fit within the parameters of this definition. You cannot be born with the guilt of your parenting or cultural lineage. This is flatly impossible.

Let me help you out here, Jay. And I'll probably go off on a few tangents, so bear with me.

There are a few aspects of this discussion that merit clarification. Let's first start with the distinction between murder and homicide. Murder is a legal term; it's what people who intentionally and illegally kill other people are charged with and often convicted of. Despite the example cited by Goobs re Wisconsin law (which is actually just a fancy way of describing a particular type of manslaughter), nobody in this country is doing time for being convicted of committing the crime of homicide; they're either convicted of murder or manslaughter, which ARE crimes. To put it in mathematical terms, murder is a subset of homicide; all murders are homicide, but not all homicides are murder. They're not synonymous, but I think you might already get that.

Let's move on to the word innocence. This is not a legal term. When defendants are acquitted of crimes with which they've been charged, they are NOT found to be innocent. They are found to be "not guilty." This may seem to be simply an issue of semantics, but it isn't, as we shall soon see. In our society, and getting away from legalese, guilt and innocence relate to doing as opposed to being; if you haven't DONE anything wrong, you're innocent and cannot be guilty. But this view is not universal. To some, the commission or non-commission of any particular criminal act has little or no bearing on the determination of guilt or innocence. To al-Qaeda, those killed in the 9/11 attacks weren't considered by the terrorists to be guilty of doing anything in particular, but that didn't make them innocent, either. In their minds, the victims were guilty of being American. Those killed during the Holocaust were guilty of being Jewish. Blacks who were lynched in our country were guilty of being Negroes. And the babies killed during the Passover were guilty of being Egyptian. The bolded portion of the first definition you provided of innocence alludes to this. A baby born from Egyptian parents is certainly innocent, in our view, of having committed any act that could be considered criminal. But their being acquainted with evil, i.e., having Egyptian parents, precluded them from being considered innocent. This may seem fucked up, and it is based on our society's view of guilt and innocence. But to try to apply our views universally across different times and cultures is a mistake.

Jay wrote:

mvscal wrote:The command is 'Thou shall not murder,' you brainless streak of shit.

No, you brainless assclown, it isn't.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

Clear enough idiot? Straight from the proverbial legendary tablets themselves, dictated to Moses from God's pinkie.

Uh, no. The tablets, assuming they existed, were not written in English. This is simply a translation error. I mentioned in a previous post that the 6th Commandment in Greek & Hebrew specify murder. As translated by the Book of Common Prayer, it reads, "Thou shalt do no murder."

The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare (1Kings 2:5–6), capital punishment (Leviticus 20:9–16) and self-defence (Exodus 22:2–3). The New Testament is in agreement that murder is a grave moral evil, and maintains the Old Testament view of bloodguilt.

Hope this helps.

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:In Wisconsin, you can be charged with "Homicide by Intoxicated Use of Vehicle". That's the law.

So?

Which part of homicide is a cause of death not a crime were you struggling to comprehend? I'd like to help.

http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do ... se+Details

Despite your little word games, it appears to me that homicide is a crime.

Who died?

R-Jack wrote:Who died?

Jeffrey Dahmer.

I agree with your post, overall, Smackie.

I might comment on this part, though, for what it's worth...

Smackie wrote:The tablets, assuming they existed, were not written in English. This is simply a translation error. I mentioned in a previous post that the 6th Commandment in Greek & Hebrew specify murder. As translated by the Book of Common Prayer, it reads, "Thou shalt do no murder."

The King James (as opposed to the NIV, NASB, etc.) uses KILL in the 6th Commandment, and I disagree that it is a translation error.
I think it is the best translation.

Raw-tsakh has the meaning of doing violence in an unjust manner ---> which causes death.

In English, if a person is shot by another man, someone might say, "He killed him," as opposed to "He murdered him."
Either would be correct.


Our use of the word murder has the meaning of an unlawful killing.

But look, for example...
If abortion is legal in our land, it is then not be considered murder - and one could say, "See, I didn't violate the 6th Commandent" if they go through with an abortion.

But abortion surely IS an unjust use of violence (raw-tsakh) upon that fetus - and any Christian with his wits about him knows that it would goes against God's intention in the 6th Commandment - even though it is not technically (and by current law) a murder.

I think -Thou shalt not kill- is the best translation.

Goober McTuber wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:In Wisconsin, you can be charged with "Homicide by Intoxicated Use of Vehicle". That's the law.

So?

Which part of homicide is a cause of death not a crime were you struggling to comprehend? I'd like to help.

http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do ... se+Details

Despite your little word games, it appears to me that homicide is a crime.

Just trying to help move this discussion on a little bit:


From a Wisconsin Defense Lawyer's website:
http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Custom/Contacts.asp

MURDER

VAN WAGNER & WOOD, CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER
MURDER DEFENSE ATTORNEY

Murder is a homicide, but there is a distinguishing difference between murder and homicide. Murder is always a crime; homicide is not; homicide is an unnatural death, which may or may not be a crime.

The term "murder" is often used to refer to all homicides as a broad categorization, including felony murder, intentional homicide, and negligent homicide or vehicular murder or manslaughter each of which is linked to below for their legal definitions. Under Wisconsin laws, "murder" does not have degrees. Conversely, homicides committed with other "intents" do have degrees. Degrees are used to classify the crime for punishment.

Interpretive translations of fables by unknown authors = conjecture

poptart wrote:I agree with your post, overall, Smackie.

I might comment on this part, though, for what it's worth...

Smackie wrote:The tablets, assuming they existed, were not written in English. This is simply a translation error. I mentioned in a previous post that the 6th Commandment in Greek & Hebrew specify murder. As translated by the Book of Common Prayer, it reads, "Thou shalt do no murder."

The King James (as opposed to the NIV, NASB, etc.) uses KILL in the 6th Commandment, and I disagree that it is a translation error.
I think it is the best translation.

Raw-tsakh has the meaning of doing violence in an unjust manner ---> which causes death.

In English, if a person is shot by another man, someone might say, "He killed him," as opposed to "He murdered him."
Either would be correct.


Our use of the word murder has the meaning of an unlawful killing.

But look, for example...
If abortion is legal in our land, it is then not be considered murder - and one could say, "See, I didn't violate the 6th Commandent" if they go through with an abortion.

But abortion surely IS an unjust use of violence (raw-tsakh) upon that fetus - and any Christian with his wits about him knows that it would goes against God's intention in the 6th Commandment - even though it is not technically (and by current law) a murder.

I think -Thou shalt not kill- is the best translation.

Taking those four words strictly at face value, it's applied too broadly and is not, in my opinion, the best translation. As written, it forbids the taking of life - accidentally, justifiably, or otherwise - of ANY living being. That is not the imperative. Van's conjecture argument notwithstanding, and in line with what you've previously posted, what is being proscribed is murder - the intentional and unlawful taking of human life. Thou shalt not kill in no way makes this clear.

To address your abortion example and expand upon it, I think you'll agree that Christians (and adherents of other religions as well) answer to at least two different sets of laws - the man-made laws of wherever they happen to live and/or are citizens, and the "God-given" laws of a higher authority. The two are not always in agreement. Using the abortion example, while it may not be murder in this country because it is not considered to be illegal, you, as a Christian, consider it to be in violation of God's law (a sin as opposed to a crime), and therefore it should be considered murder. I get that. While an abortionist or the recipient of an abortion may not face earthly punishment through the legal system, God'll get 'em in the afterlife (unless they repent, of course). This can also be applied to the popular Hitler argument. If Hitler made the laws of the sovereign nation he led (and those he conquered), and those laws made it not only ok, but encouraged, to kill Jews, then by definition, killing the Jews wasn't murder since it wasn't illegal. I'm guessing God, Jews, and a few other humans might think otherwise. But what they think doesn't change the definition, which is really the point I'm trying to make. Do I, personally, consider the Holocaust victims to have been murdered? As a matter of principle, of course. But by definition, it wasn't, and the definition doesn't really care (to the extent that a definition can care) what I or anyone else thinks.

Goober McTuber wrote:http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do ... se+Details

Despite your little word games, it appears to me that homicide is a crime.

I've never seen intentional homicide used as a synonym for murder, but ok. It's not precise enough, in my opinion. Capital punishment, killing an enemy combatant in wartime, and self-defense killings are all forms of intentional homicide, but are not crimes. Use of the word murder is better.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do ... se+Details

Despite your little word games, it appears to me that homicide is a crime.

I've never seen intentional homicide used as a synonym for murder, but ok. It's not precise enough, in my opinion. Capital punishment, killing an enemy combatant in wartime, and self-defense killings are all forms of intentional homicide, but are not crimes. Use of the word murder is better.

But homicide can be a crime. So is using it as an adjective.

Goober McTuber wrote:But homicide can be a crime.

Yes, it can be. But it also may not be. Murder is always a crime.

So is using it as an adjective.

And should be punishable by intentional homicide.

mvscal wrote:"Homicide, as defined by the dictionary as well as law, is a crime and is murder."

Wrong. Go ahead and cite the title and section of your state's law against 'homicide' and/or provide a link to anybody in the history of this country who has been convicted of this alleged crime of 'homicide.'

It shouldn't be too difficult unless, of course, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about in which case you might want to stock up on Snickers bars.

Snickers smack...very creative. Anyway, the definition I applied for the word 'homicide' was taken directly from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. You know, it's that big book with all the meanings of words and stuff. You do know what a dictionary is, don't you mv? At any rate, since this discussion was mostly from a theoretical viewpoint, as opposed to your strictly legal one, the word stands as analogous with murder. Look it up, even though I've already done that for you. And the police department that handles crimes of murder is called...ready....HOMICIDE. For a reason, but I suppose that reason is clearly over your pointed, pin-head.

"I've already shown the definition of innocence, and it isn't a "concept". It's a noun and a fact."

Of course it's a concept. Your definition of innocence is not the same as a bronze age Israelite or even a WW2 era bomber crew. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to grasp.

Once again, the definition comes from the dictionary. It isn't mine. It's the universally approved and proper definition. And of course, you very conveniently avoided the challenge of proving how a baby is NOT innocent. And the obvious reason is the simplest one...you can't. Why YOU can't...or rather WON'T grasp these concepts is understandable however. Logic can never enter into a mvscal argument. It has no place there. If you can't spin, deflect, misdirect, or lie about an opinion or fact, you simply do what you do...ignore it. Good old mvscal, burying his head in the sand, singing..."lah-lah-lah, can't see me, can't touch me." Sad.

"Trying to hide under the skirt of divergent "cultural values throughout time" does nothing to enhance your position, that of being on a cliff and ready to nose-dive into your own pitiful duplicity. You are innocent, or you are guilty. Any gray area in-between is for true justice to decide, of which you are not a representative. And you can time-skip to your black heart's content for validation of your argument...death is still death, murder is still murder, innocence is still and always will be, innocence, end of fucking story."

This doesn't even make any sense on any level. You're flailin, spinning, lying and distorting. It's pretty pathetic really. I expect you'll be crawling back under the rock you slimed your way out from under. That is the way of cunty little bitches like you.

It makes perfect sense, you just don't have a reasoned come back for it. All you can do is name-call, stick your fingers in your floppy ears and waggle your cum-slathered tongue with a disgusting, sticky spray of "neener-neener". I feel sorry for you dude, I really do. How pathetic it must be to have this board, and this audience as your only outlet in life, and have to take on the role of the big, bad cyber-punk on the block, all the while, hiding behind your computer, pimpled-puss all scrunched up while you reach for your little booklet of slang and curses for yet another one of those "brilliant" mvscall-isms.

Homicide:

Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense.

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

The killing of one human being by the act or omission of another. The term applies to all such killings, whether criminal or not. Homicide is noncriminal in a number of situations, including deaths as the result of war and putting someone to death by the valid sentence of a court. Killing may also be legally justified or excused, as it is in cases of self-defense or when someone is killed by another person who is attempting to prevent a violent felony. Criminal homicide occurs when a person purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or with extreme negligence causes the death of another. Murder and manslaughter are examples of criminal homicide.

And here once again, you make my argument for me. Quote, "not all homicide is murder"...this directly implies that homicide CAN be defined as murder, in some cases. It is criminal, in some situations. So there you have it, hoist on your very own retard petard. And speaking of petards, as the origin and definition of that particular word means to "break wind", it exemplifies your position brilliantly.

Now then, since you happen to consider yourself a sort of culinary 'bon vivant', why don't you sashay into your kitchen, whip up bit fat helping of humble-pie with a nice side-serving of crow and take a bite. Please to remove the penis from your drooling maw first, because you'll need every inch of room.

Bon appétit you felching puță.