Enough to make one support the death penalty...

[Belz...]

All criteria any of us uses to define if something is right or wrong are inherently not impartial, since we have never talked directly to God/Buddha/Allah.

That still doesn't answer my question. Why are you avoiding it ?

We can call an apple as "orange" but it is still an apple.

In this case it's an orange, not an apple, no matter how you want to call it.

If you redefine "murder" to mean "killing a person in a way I disagree with", then you'll find it hard to communicate with anyone who doesn't agree with you.

People call killings of other human beings as "murder" or not depending on whether they do not side with the killer or do.

Perhaps you should look up a dictionary. These tend to represent the real use of words.

 

[KumarS]

That still doesn't answer my question. Why are you avoiding it ?

Your question
I am asking you what criteria you use to judge whether someone's reasons are reasons at all.

My answer
If the reasons are based on strict self-defence (or of family) I would consider them valid reasons, if not I would not (broadly speaking)

If you redefine "murder" to mean "killing a person in a way I disagree with", then you'll find it hard to communicate with anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Perhaps you should look up a dictionary. These tend to represent the real use of words.

Not to mean "killing a person in a way I disagree with" but "killing a person in a way that a particular group of people (strongly) disagrees with".
So what is considered as murder in country A may not be considered as such in country B.
The Law of country A defines one killing as murder, the laws of country B defines it as manslaughter, the country C defines it as legitimate killing

 

[MontagK505]

The point is that people supporting death penalty are also sadistic murderers,

\


By the rules most states use, the people in the execution chamber have the right to fit a killing needle into the convict arm.

Which is still not as sadistic as what was done to the girls.

If you want to regard capital punishment as morally wrong fine. But murder is a legal term defined by the laws of the state.

 

[KumarS]

Which is still not as sadistic as what was done to the girls.

Agreed.
And what done to the girls was not as sadistic as what Mao did to political prisoners.
I am not available to waste time to make to find all the most sadistic ways to kill people

If you want to regard capital punishment as morally wrong fine. But murder is a legal term defined by the laws of the state.

It is
So if the country/state/empire/sultanate decides that killing your wife for having been betrayed is not murder, this is not murder, if they decide that it is murder, then it is murder
According to what are the laws for that country/state/empire/sultanate in that period of time

 

[Belz...]

Your question
I am asking you what criteria you use to judge whether someone's reasons are reasons at all.

My answer
If the reasons are based on strict self-defence (or of family) I would consider them valid reasons, if not I would not (broadly speaking)

If you think this answers my question, then you don't understand the question. Let me give you a possible answer:

The question
I am asking you what criteria you use to judge whether someone's reasons are reasons at all.

An answer
If they can articulate those reasons in a way that I at least understand.

I'm not asking you which reasons would be reasons in this specific case. I am quite clearly asking you what criteria you apply to reasons given in any context in order to judge whether they are reasons at all. This shouldn't be complicated to understand.

So what is considered as murder in country A may not be considered as such in country B.

Yes, because what's legal in both isn't the same, which proves my point.

 

[KumarS]

If you think this answers my question, then you don't understand the question. Let me give you a possible answer:

The question
I am asking you what criteria you use to judge whether someone's reasons are reasons at all.

An answer
If they can articulate those reasons in a way that I at least understand.

I'm not asking you which reasons would be reasons in this specific case. I am quite clearly asking you what criteria you apply to reasons given in any context in order to judge whether they are reasons at all. This shouldn't be complicated to understand.

I can not understand why this criterion example you have offered should be a valid answer and why the criterion I have offered should not be a valid answer.
They are both two criterion for considering whether a killing should be legitimate
I can not provide any better answer than this.

Yes, because what's legal in both isn't the same, which proves my point.

I do not know if it proves your point or not, but this was what I was saying, that the word "murder" practically means different things in different countries

 

[Belz...]

I can not understand why this criterion example you have offered should be a valid answer and why the criterion I have offered should not be a valid answer.
They are both two criterion for considering whether a killing should be legitimate

Then I'm sorry for you, but you are utterly incapable of understanding a simple question.

 

[KumarS]

Then I'm sorry for you, but you are utterly incapable of understanding a simple question.

Or maybe you are utterly incapable to elaborate a simple explanation.
It works both ways

Anyway, I give up.

 

[Belz...]

Or maybe you are utterly incapable to elaborate a simple explanation.
It works both ways

No, it doesn't. You want to make a poll about it ?

On ANY topic, what criteria do you use to determine if something IS a reason ?

 

[KumarS]

No, it doesn't. You want to make a poll about it ?

On ANY topic, what criteria do you use to determine if something IS a reason ?

If you want to make a poll, please go ahead I am not interested.
On any topic, there is no definite criterion to determine if there is a reason

BTW
You should use the singular of word "criteria"

 

[Belz...]

If you want to make a poll, please go ahead I am not interested.
On any topic, there is no definite criterion to determine if there is a reason

That's exactly why I'm asking for YOURS. Are you always having so much trouble understanding what people tell you ?

You should use the singular of word "criteria"

Criteria is the plural. So I'm using that when I mean more than one.

 

[KumarS]

That's exactly why I'm asking for YOURS. Are you always having so much trouble understanding what people tell you ?

This is what I have been telling you for a few days already.

My criterion to determine whether a killing may be legitimate is whether or not the killing was done for self defense.

 

[Belz...]

This is what I have been telling you for a few days already.

My criterion to determine whether a killing may be legitimate is whether or not the killing was done for self defense.

And I've been telling you that this isn't what I'm asking. I'm not asking for what you'd find an acceptable reason in this specific topic, but what you'd consider a reason on any topic.

Did you forget, already ? Why is this so hard for you to grasp ?

 

[KumarS]

And I've been telling you that this isn't what I'm asking. I'm not asking for what you'd find an acceptable reason in this specific topic, but what you'd consider a reason on any topic.

Did you forget, already ? Why is this so hard for you to grasp ?

It definitely is
I have no idea what is the meaning of I'm not asking for what you'd find an acceptable reason in this specific topic, but what you'd consider a reason on any topic.
I just do no get it.
Maybe you are asking about what would be a criterion to define whether the criterion I have put forward is acceptable or not?
If not, I have no idea about what you are talking about

 

[Belz...]

I have no idea about what you are talking about

Clearly. Perhaps you are forgetting the context.

I'm giving it one last try. Here's what you said initially:

The borderline between reasons and excuses is many times nonexistent.

So I want to know where that borderline is. What qualifies as a reason, and what doesn't ? How do you define "reason" ? And I'd like a definition that applies to every context.

Again, I'm not asking for examples or for you to tell me in which circumstances such an event is justified. Read my questions above again.

 

[KumarS]

So I want to know where that borderline is. What qualifies as a reason, and what doesn't ? How do you define "reason" ? And I'd like a definition that applies to every context.

Again, I'm not asking for examples or for you to tell me in which circumstances such an event is justified. Read my questions above again.

The borderline is what each of us would consider as such.
There is no such God-given criterion to determine the borderline between reasons and excuses.
I hope this replies to your question

 

[Belz...]

The borderline is what each of us would consider as such.
There is no such God-given criterion to determine the borderline between reasons and excuses.
I hope this replies to your question

Of course it doesn't, since I asked you what your line is.

It's obvious by now you are deliberately and dishonestly avoiding the question.

Goodbye.