Should rape by deception be legal for trans people? To have sex without telling they are trans.

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
And yet, it obviously is Legal, Moral, Ethical, and even "praiseworthy".
By definition (again), murder cannot be legal.

I would say that there are a very few circumstances where murder might be called by some 'moral' or 'ethical' - I'm thinking of mercy-killing and some vigilante killings. Some might even call some vigilante killings praiseworthy (I'm thinking of, for example, where someone commonly held to be guilty of some heinous crime is found not guilty in court due to some technicality and subsequently gets murdered. Many might see that as some form of justice and thus praiseworthy).
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Why do you ask such ridiculous questions?
To expose the ludicrousness of your arguments. You see, Xi Jinping I would point out what he's doing is perfectly legal in Communist China. To which you'd have to respond (based on your argument that murder is something that's against the law by definition) "well, I guess it's OK then."
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
To expose the ludicrousness of your arguments.
You failed dismally, since (see below) you can't even get my arguments right.
You see, Xi Jinping I would point out what he's doing is perfectly legal in Communist China. To which you'd have to respond (based on your argument that murder is something that's against the law by definition) "well, I guess it's OK then."
Strawman and falsehood. I have nowhere ever said that because something is legal it is OK. Murder is against the law by definition. That is simply a fact; it carries no moral weight. It neither condemns nor endorses the act; it merely defines its legality. If you don't like that, take it up with the English language.

To Xi Jinping I would reply "then it's not murder" which, in that jurisdiction, it isn't.

Try to actually get people's arguments right.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
You failed dismally, since (see below) you can't even get my arguments right.

Strawman and falsehood.
I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong. It's a much more palatable notion than to think that you actually believe some of the stuff that you say.
I have nowhere ever said that because something is legal it is OK. Murder is against the law by definition.
Unfortunately, you just repeated your argument. And you really got my hopes up too.
That is simply a fact; it carries no moral weight.
Something is murder because it is wrong. It's an unjustified homicide. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not if it's unjustified it's murder. It doesn't matter that there is a term of law which is equivalent to the standard definition of murder. Like all legal language it is subject to legislation and precedent. But murder is a perfectly good English word even outside of the legal context.
It neither condemns nor endorses the act; it merely defines its legality.
I think you're looking for the law forum… don't know where that is, but it's not here.
If you don't like that, take it up with the English language.
But you're not appealing to the English language, you're appealing to a legal definition.
To Xi Jinping I would reply "then it's not murder" which, in that jurisdiction, it isn't.
It is not a justified homicide, it is murder.
Try to actually get people's arguments right.
This is a killer line. Unfortunately you repeated your false argument in this post and that was really the entire argument content of the post.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
By definition (again), murder cannot be legal.

I would say that there are a very few circumstances where murder might be called by some 'moral' or 'ethical' - I'm thinking of mercy-killing and some vigilante killings. Some might even call some vigilante killings praiseworthy (I'm thinking of, for example, where someone commonly held to be guilty of some heinous crime is found not guilty in court due to some technicality and subsequently gets murdered. Many might see that as some form of justice and thus praiseworthy).
And SOME PEOPLE claim that the the premeditated MURDER of a baby during the first and second trimester - isn't "Murder" at all. But playing "Word games" with terminology changes nothing.
 

J regia

Well-known member
And the "Supreme Court" has also Explicitly said that murdering babies is legal - as long as you murder them before the third trimester. So much for the "Supreme Court".
Same same for the bible, which even commands the termination of pregnancies of adulteresses (Leviticus 20:10 Numbers 5:20-28).
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong. It's a much more palatable notion than to think that you actually believe some of the stuff that you say.

Unfortunately, you just repeated your argument. And you really got my hopes up too.

Something is murder because it is wrong. It's an unjustified homicide. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not if it's unjustified it's murder. It doesn't matter that there is a term of law which is equivalent to the standard definition of murder. Like all legal language it is subject to legislation and precedent. But murder is a perfectly good English word even outside of the legal context.
The discussion - which you interrupted - was about whether or not abortion was murder. Contrary to what you say, something is murder because it satisfies the definition of murder - which is 'illegal killing of a human being'. If something is legal, by definition it can't be murder. That's simply a fact which carries no moral weight. It's not an argument; it's a simple question of definitions of English language words. Sorry if you don't like that.

I think you're looking for the law forum… don't know where that is, but it's not here.
Then as so often, you think wrongly.1
But you're not appealing to the English language, you're appealing to a legal definition.
False. I am citing the English language definition of the word.
It is not a justified homicide, it is murder.
Not in the English language, it's not.
This is a killer line. Unfortunately you repeated your false argument in this post and that was really the entire argument content of the post.
I didn't repeat (or make) any argument; I stated facts which you have not even attempted to refute. You've just tried to avoid them, as you so often do.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
The discussion - which you interrupted - was about whether or not abortion was murder.
Indeed it was; which is why I commented.
Contrary to what you say, something is murder because it satisfies the definition of murder - which is 'illegal killing of a human being'.
That is a definition. What is relevant to this discussion about abortion is the standard English definition of murder which is an unjustified taking of a life.
If something is legal, by definition it can't be murder.
No that is not correct. The relevant definition is the regular English language definition of murder which is an unjustified homicide.
That's simply a fact which carries no moral weight.
This is a question about what ought to be the law. Appealing to the current status of the law simply avoids the question.
It's not an argument; it's a simple question of definitions of English language words.
That is not the simple English definition of the word, that is the legal definition of the word, which is not the primary meaning of murder.
Sorry if you don't like that.
What I like is completely irrelevant to the standard English definition of murder.
Then as so often, you think wrongly.1

False. I am citing the English language definition of the word.

Not in the English language, it's not.
You are like talking to a post. You get these crazy ideas in your head and you can't seem to get them out. Here is the English definition of the word murder.

"The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extremeindifference to the value of human life." [link]

Note that the unqualified requirement for murder is "The killing of another person without justification or excuse."
I didn't repeat (or make) any argument; I stated facts which you have not even attempted to refute. You've just tried to avoid them, as you so often do.
You said, "legal killing can't be murder by definition." Illegality is obviously not a necessary requirement for murder.
 

J regia

Well-known member
Nothing about "Abortion" in either of your cites. Pretty serious consequences for the adulteress, though.
So what is the fate of the pregnancy if a pregnant adulteress is commanded to be stoned to death (Lev 20:10) or to just drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it" (Numbers 5:20-28)?

Or are you claiming that adulteresses never become pregnant?
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Indeed it was; which is why I commented.

That is a definition. What is relevant to this discussion about abortion is the standard English definition of murder which is an unjustified taking of a life.
Blatantly and completely false. Consult any dictionary. I know, I know, you'll just ignore it and invent your own definition.

The standard English definition of murder is illegal killing of a human being, whether you like it or not.

No that is not correct. The relevant definition is the regular English language definition of murder which is an unjustified homicide.
That is false. You are making up definitions to suit yourself.

This is a question about what ought to be the law. Appealing to the current status of the law simply avoids the question.
No, that is not the question. If you want to have that discussion, go do it. The question is whether or not abortion is murder. It is not, by definition, where it is legal.

That is not the simple English definition of the word, that is the legal definition of the word, which is not the primary meaning of murder.
It is the simple English definition of the word, found in every dictionary.

What I like is completely irrelevant to the standard English definition of murder.
More nonsense. You are only too eager to ignore the standard English definition.

You are like talking to a post. You get these crazy ideas in your head and you can't seem to get them out.
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Here is the English definition of the word murder.

"The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extremeindifference to the value of human life." [link]

Note that the unqualified requirement for murder is "The killing of another person without justification or excuse."
You get funnier and funnier. Did you have to hunt hard for a definition that suits you?

By contrast:

Do I need to go on? Oh, and just to help you I bolded the relevant words in the definitions above - you know, words like 'crime' and 'unlawful'.

Your fiction of a 'standard English definition' which suits you is just that - a fiction.

You said, "legal killing can't be murder by definition." Illegality is obviously not a necessary requirement for murder.
Illegality is a necessary requirement for murder, as shown above. Abortion cannot be murder in any jurisdiction where it is legal.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
So what is the fate of the pregnancy if a pregnant adulteress is commanded to be stoned to death (Lev 20:10) or to just drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it" (Numbers 5:20-28)?

Or are you claiming that adulteresses never become pregnant?
(Chuckle) all I know for SURE is that the Bible doesn't SAY they were in either case. But HEY!! who cares what the Bible says, you've got an INTERPRETATION to try to sell.

Have at it.
 

J regia

Well-known member
(Chuckle) all I know for SURE is that the Bible doesn't SAY they were in either case. But HEY!! who cares what the Bible says, you've got an INTERPRETATION to try to sell.

Have at it.
That's your choice if you believe adulteresses never ever become pregnant, but why weren't male adulterers also commanded to drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it" too?
Or are you just in denial about what the bible actually says and means?
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
They're essentially saying "honest, I'm an ugly woman not a pretty man." There is no way to characterize that as "honest."
If they believe that the body they have now is a true reflection of who they are then they wouldn't see it as being dishonest?
 
Top