• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -331 year ago

    They’re not. Murder has a specific definition, what’s happening in gaza is not it.

    Brutal, maybe, but it’s a useless word and the editorial guidelines likely provide different words that are more applicable in a reporting context.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      311 year ago

      Murder does have a specific definition, you are correct in that.

      What’s happening in Gaza meets that definition, so you are wrong in that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -291 year ago

        No it doesn’t, the government of Israel is giving the orders, and therefore it’s not murder. Governments can’t murder, there are other words that describe when a government kills people.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      271 year ago

      Soldiers sniping obviously innocent people (including women going to church, and hostages trying to escape in their underwear waving white flags) is definitely murder.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -251 year ago

        If a solider is operating on orders when killing civilians, it’s legally not murder. It’s still bad, but they will not charged by the government with murder because it was authorized by the government.

        That’s what I’m saying here. There are legal definitions for these words that matter.

        • Nikelui
          link
          fedilink
          231 year ago

          Ah, so it’s war crimes. I was worried there for a bit.
          /s

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              71 year ago

              You know what else may be considered small brain thinking? Acting so pedantic over insignificant details like these, all while real people continue to die every day. The end result is the same: a mass slaughter of innocents.

              But that’s just my opinion.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 year ago

                You know what else is small brain thinking? INCORRECTLY being pedantic about word choices. That’s the part that pisses me off the most with these apologists. They are literally incorrecting people using words properly.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              I cited the definitions of “murder” above. Explain to me, with reference to these definitions, how the term “murder” doesn’t apply. (Hint: this is not possible.)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          121 year ago

          “Legal” definitions are for “legal” actions and “legal” contexts. Like an international criminal court.

          This is reportage for a general audience, not legal briefs. Fuck off with your legalistic shit.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes. Murder has very specific definitions. (Note the plural.) Let me help you out with this, Sparky:

      murder

      / ˈmɜr dər /

      noun

      1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder, ormurder one ), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder, or murder two ).

      2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!

      verb

      1. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.

      2. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

      3. to commit murder.

      The slang definition doesn’t apply, so 2. A newspaper is not a court of law, so the legal definitions are gone: 1 and 3. That leaves 5 (which itself is just a reference to the legal definition, so 5) and 4.

      I think 4 applies fully here. What’s happening in Gaza is definitely a slaughter, definitely inhuman, and definitely barbarous. This is also the correct register for informal reportage not related to legal actions.

      So perhaps if you want to argue based on definitions you should fucking read the dictionary first, Sparky. Or get used to people pointing and laughing at you in your clown pants.