Indeed. So we should stay away from those regions until we have a reasonable, viable plan to dismantle these organizations, and prevent future ones from replacing them and attacking us.
(In my opinion, “staying away from those regions” is probably the biggest step we can take to prevent future organizations from popping up and wanting to attack us, but that’s a different argument.)
You know what doesn’t help with that?
Giving them the dramatic label of “terrorist.” “Terrorism” is a problem that needs to be solved now. Yesterday, if not sooner. Don’t think: act, and destroy these enemies that are trying to terrorize us. It can’t wait for viable, well-thought-out plans: we need to bomb these terrorists into sand today.
If we just call them “murderers,” however, the problem appears much less urgent, and we can deal with it rationally, taking the time we need to implement a lasting solution.
If there is no argument or debate, then just how do you suppose people compile dictionaries? There is a huge amount of discussion over these things when dictionaries are made, and I think it would be naive to assume that such issues magically disappear once a volume is published.
You disagreeing with what is written in dictionaries regarding murder as a synonym for homicide shows you are not concerned with rules and details for learning and academic discourse.[/quote]
Oh, for the love of all of the gods, whether they be real or imagined!
This started when someone said, instead of “terrorism,” what Daesh is doing should be called “homicide and murder.” You then claimed that this person couldn’t be serious, as the two were synonyms.
The rest of this conversation has been a pedantic quibble, on all parts, not about the definitions of “homicide” or “murder,” but about the definition of “synonym.”
You think that a synonym is “anything that a dictionary lists as a synonym.” Fair enough. Others think that, in order to be synonymous, words have to be practically interchangeable. That’s also a valid point of view, per the definition of “synonymous” that I quoted.
Can you please just concede the point that the original person who wrote “homicide and murder” might have been serious and logical in using the two words separately, in that they are similar words with different implications? Then we can stop quibbling about what “synonymous” means, which has no bearing at all on the argument at hand.
What point? You have been off the rail since the beginning of this exchange.
Classifications are irrelevant to our debate.
Re-read this again–I will put the headline in CAPS
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOMICIDE?
Every state in the United States has different types of homicide classifications. However, these classifications generally fall into three general categories. Those general categories are:
Regardless of the circumstances or the outcome of the charges, a homicide involves the taking of a human life and a homicide attorney should be contacted to guide you through the legal process.
Murder, Manslaughter and Justifiable Homicide are all different forms or types of Homicide–your point about categories is irrelevant, because Homicide involves the taking of a life and murder is the taking of a life…
Dictionaries all over the world list murder as a synonym of homicide. The fact that murder is a actual classification of homicide makes your argument even more pointless…
Let’s just take this offline/pm, if you care to debate. You appear to be a consciousness and educated person. So I am loathe to get into a tit for tat, anymore than we have. If you would like further clarification, as it is, send me a private message.
We are debating homicide and murder–and you are harping on different categories or types of homicide. It might not be safe for me to go off-line–there are no witnesses off-line to murder, manslaughter or justifiable homicide…
So for security and self preservation: the private message is:
Are you saying that on-line and print dictionaries in America and around the world which list murder as a synonym for homicide are wrong?
If you are–than your debate is not with me–it is with those editors and publishers of those on-line and print dictionaries.
I’ve created a new topic for the “murder” vs “homicide” debate.
It would be relevant if anyone in this thread were actually debating between which of those two should be applied to Daesh. The debate here, though, seems to be whether the two are synonymous, which I think is hinging more on the definition of the word “synonym” than anything else, and thus isn’t contributing at all to the discussion about Daesh.
I don’t know who she or he is, but I like MakedaQueenofSheba.
Daesh is a terrorist organization–and beheading innocent people and using other methods to kill people is murder which is a type of homicide.
Practically the entire world lists Daesh as a terrorist organization.
I know no one disagrees with this!
Besides, Daesh should not be linked name wise with the African-Kemetic goddess Isis–there would be outrage in America if the world outside America used a acronym and called a terrorist organization "Jesus’
The goddess Isis may be a mythical religious character, but she is a part of African and African-American history and culture. That culture and history is valued by many people. The loving, caring, nurturing and maternal personal characteristics and attributes of the goddess Isis is in direct opposition to what Daesh is doing and stands for…
I don’t disagree with any of this (except not knowing MakedaQueenofSheba well enough to form an opinion of whether or not I like her).
As I said, my disagreement about whether or not Daesh should be called “terrorists” had nothing to do with whether the label is accurate - I think the label is perfectly accurate.
The reason I think that they should be called “murderers” instead of “terrorists” is entirely about the consequences of labelling someone a “terrorist”: namely, civil rights violations, bigotry, and the urge to jump into a bad situation immediately to root out the “terrorists,” instead of standing back, forming a coherent plan, and taking our time to see it through properly.
If we call them “terrorists,” then we are reacting based on how they made us feel, on emotions, rather than logic, which is never a good way to being a major undertaking like dismantling a criminal organization. If we just call them “murderers,” or, as a group, “a criminal organization,” then the emphasis goes back on to what they’ve done, and we can track them down and destroy them like any other criminal organization.
How about I petition the media to stop calling the document for dead people’s estates a Will?
Or should I go by the other common William variant instead (Bill). Do I get to petition the government to stop calling the idiot laws they create Bills? What about the insulting documents that people get asking for money?
Where’s my petition? That’s WAY worse, and unlike Isis that’s not going away anytime soon. I’m stuck with it forever.
"This pedantic aside is rather silly though, ISIS are clearly terrorists and murderers. Calling them terrorists doesn’t legitimize them in any way, being a terrorist isn’t a positive attribute, it is a fact though’
I’d like to take this moment to point out that @khepra not only started this thread but has only posted about this one specific issue (over and over and over again).
@MakedaQueenofSheba, meanwhile, has been here a whole day and has posted on this subject (and only this subject) fifteen times now.
Both of them have shown no intention for settling for anything other than everybody blindly agreeing that ‘ISIS’ is an insult to the Goddess Isis … but clearly don’t care about any other people that are impacted by similar issues. They only care about one thing…and they’re very possibly the same person.
Meanwhile, lots of other great conversations have gone on in the forums and neither has shown any interest in any of the other threads. Neither has ‘liked’ any posts other than ones in this thread and none have seen fit to comment on any other issues (despite there being many very important things being discussed that should impact any ethical person)
I think we need to acknowledge the fact that nothing’s going to come of conversation with them. They’re not doing anything other than aggressively disagreeing with any post that does not side with them.
I don’t see the point in engaging them further. They’re single-issue trolls that add nothing to the community, pure and simple.
That in mind, here’s a gif of an isopod attacking a shark. Because while I don’t respect our two (one) obsessive indivdual’s behaviors…I think everyone else deserves some entertainment for being so tolerant of the trolls.
We should start a petition to rename it the Daesh.
The Isis is actually just the Thames. Some Victorian scholars decided that, based upon the Latin name Tamesis, the river was the Thames-Isis below the point where the Thame tributary joins it, and the Isis above. Nowadays nobody cares about that stupid whimsy, except for some pointedly tosser-ish Oxford students.
Surely if it were true, that means that the Isis is moving in Central London, successfully mingling within other, more secular waters? Someone should get Donald Trump on the case.
Don’t forget Mithras, Pan, Bacchus, Buddha, Krshna - if you want to claim Jesus as your own based upon the pilfering of legend, you’ll have to get in line. Anyway, modern affiliates of Isis are as guilty of thieving mythology as any, since the movement is pure, speculative, reconstruction and as speculative or ahistorical as, say, Mormonism.