Sean Martin – At least give Bill Myers credit for saying what he meant very clearly. I think you missed his point – which isn’t very easy to do, unless you try very hard. Obviously I don’t agree with him, but I understood his words – which were, as far as I could see, spelled correctly.
“It’s a sodlier’s first duty to die for his country” (no ellipsis, and no spellcheck) is what Bobb Alfred said. I don’t know why he said it. I don’t know what he really meant to say.
American soldiers are duty-bound to put the constitution above their own life — it’s part of their swearing in. It seems no challange to intuit Bobb meant that. If you aren’t so fragile as to disallow him from rephrasing — or needing to hold typos against the commenter — his doing so should settle the issue.
Mike: Saying that a soldier’s first duty is to die for his country isn’t a typo or an unfortunate phrasing. It is a confusion between military service and a suicide cult. To call something a first duty is either to have considered it and ranked it as one’s primary obligation or to have no idea what the words mean in English.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 18, 2007 03:58 PM
Sean Martin – At least give Bill Myers credit for saying what he meant very clearly. I think you missed his point – which isn’t very easy to do, unless you try very hard. Obviously I don’t agree with him, but I understood his words – which were, as far as I could see, spelled correctly.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 18, 2007 03:52 PM
“It’s a sodlier’s first duty to die for his country” (no ellipsis, and no spellcheck) is what Bobb Alfred said.
By the way Jeffrey, “spellcheck” is properly spelled as “spell check”. It’s two words. Since you just so love pointing out the typo errors of others…
~8?)
News Alert: Mike was right about one thing. In quoting him, I copied his “arguing as to discredit” as “arguing to discredit.” I couldn’t say what the difference is in meaning, but the quotation wasn’t correct…
Posted by: Sean Martin at May 18, 2007 03:50 PM
So clearly you are supporting Jeffery Frawley’s approach. I mean, that is what you just wrote, right?
I can’t tell whether you’re being sarcastic or not. So, just to be safe, let me clarify: I was being sarcastic. I was trying to point out that none of us can actually, y’know, win anything tangible here. That being the case, I think we’re better off pursuing honest communication which requires a good-faith attempt to understand your “opponent,” even if you disagree with him or her.
But I have a feeling those who don’t need to hear this will get turned off, and those who do need to hear it have already turned off. So thus ends my sermonette. I return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast day.
To call something a first duty is either to have considered it and ranked it as one’s primary obligation or to have no idea what the words mean in English.
The man has posted since then to try and make clear what he meant VS what he first typed.
“That was poorly thought out.”
“That wasn’t as clear as I had hoped.”
“That wasn’t phrased as well as it should have been.”
“My brain was fried when I posted that one.”
Things like this get said here a lot. Everybody has a bad post or even a bad day when it comes to brain-to-finger-to-blog thoughts. If someone comes back and makes clear or tries to make clear what they were saying or meant to say and you just want to keep pounding away on the statement that they and others have left behind… Well, you’re a Mike.
Get over it already.
Jeffrey Frawley: Sean Martin – At least give Bill Myers credit for saying what he meant very clearly. I think you missed his point
Uh, I think you missed mine. Bill was commenting on a tendency to nit pick actual work choice rather than intent, so naturally I nit picked his word choice to claim he was expressing exactly the opposite opinion of what he actually meant.
In other words, it was a joke. Ain’t’cha gots no sensa hyoouma?
“Spellcheck” was a typo. Mea maxima culpa. “First duty” is something else. “First” and “duty” are small, very easily defined words. I’m not looking to make friends here (Those I respect would probably prefer that I keep it to myself), and I can’t fool myself that I’m going to change very many people’s minds. (Last year PAD said it was never possible to convince anyone of anything, but I doubt that is accurate.) I do wonder, however, whether it’s all right with Jerry Chandler if I express my opinions as I wish. Bill Myers will certainly recognize the sarcasm here, and I have no reason to think Jerry Chandler will have a problem there, so this heads up must be for Sean Martin.
Cutting the jokes for a minute, “That wasn’t as clear as I had hoped” is something one says when one is misunderstood, not when one realizes one’s opinion is foolish.
Bill Myers: Posted by: Sean Martin at May 18, 2007 03:50 PM
So clearly you are supporting Jeffery Frawley’s approach. I mean, that is what you just wrote, right?
I can’t tell whether you’re being sarcastic or not.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic. Sorry that wasn’t as clear as I though t it would be.
Perhaps folks are getting a little sensitive to having their own specific word choices being taken to literally and are starting to do it themselves?
Sean Martin: … Jeffery Frawley…
Jeffrey Frawley: but I understood his words – which were, as far as I could see, spelled correctly.
Jeffrey Frawley: “Spellcheck” was a typo. Mea maxima culpa.
Not a bit deal. Wouldn’t you agree that picking on someone over a obvious typo is petty?
No, “not a bit (sic) deal” at all – not even over “a (sic) obvious typo”!
Jeffrey Frawley: so this heads up must be for Sean Martin.
Huh? Me? Until just now I haven’t made any posts regarding Dante or “first duties” and only one (apparently misunderstood) brief sarcastic posting about the nit picking going on. And *I’m* the one getting a heads up about whether one can change people’s minds?
Jeffrey Frawley: Cutting the jokes for a minute, “That wasn’t as clear as I had hoped” is something one says when one is misunderstood, not when one realizes one’s opinion is foolish.
Exactly. And it doesn’t seem to me that anyone was suggesting otherwise.
That wasn’t as clear as I had hoped” is something one says when one is misunderstood, not when one realizes one’s opinion is foolish.
Not always. Lots of us discuss topics here that we discuss at length with others elsewhere. Sometimes we don’t fully think about what we’re typing and we shorthand something that we’re used to saying elsewhere. You can also get used to saying something that you know what it means, but it misses the mark when out of context.
I disagree with the idea that a soldier’s first duty is to die for one’s country. I said as much when Bobb first posted the statement. He then went to explain what he meant by that. The idea that a soldier should know that he has a better then average chance of death in combat simply because he signed a dotted line and became a soldier can be expressed, if poorly so, as having your first duty being the chance to die for your country. Not the best way to say it and not the clearest way to say what Bobb claimed he meant, but I can see where he could have being saying something other then what he posted in B&W.
Maybe I’m willing to cut more slack on this type of phrasing because I get it all the time. People always talk about how cops sign up for a job where they’ll put their lives on the line to protect others. Well, yeah… kinda. I don’t know many cops who wanted to be cops so that they could risk their lives and maybe die defending others. You know it’s a chance, but it’s not why you become a cop. It’s not the desciption of the job either. But it’s true enough in the way people use it and in the context of how they explain what they mean by it.
Bobb said something in a sloppy manner. I didn’t agree with it either. Bobb came back and made clear what he was thinking and meant to say in full context. I could then see the point he was trying to make. Anybody who isn’t actually trying not to get it should be able to get it and move on from there. Now, can we move the debate on from here before it gets as old as as a thread hijacked by a Mike debate?
Posted by: Sean Martin at May 18, 2007 05:20 PM
Yeah, I was being sarcastic. Sorry that wasn’t as clear as I though t it would be.
No. No dice. You said what you said and I’m going to take it literally and hold it against you for eternity. Because I’m SURE that will make me the coolest person around. 😉
Bill Myers:No. No dice. You said what you said
Ðámņ. Now I’m marked forever.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 18, 2007 05:13 PM
Cutting the jokes for a minute, “That wasn’t as clear as I had hoped” is something one says when one is misunderstood, not when one realizes one’s opinion is foolish.
True. The problem is you are not very good at distinguishing between the two. Keep it up and you will end up like Mike in short order, with very few people engaging you because they’ve realized you’re a waste of time.
It’s a sodlier’s first duty to die for his country.
To paraphrase George C. Scott in Patton: No, his first duty to make the other poor bášŧárd die for his country.
Mike: “I should hope the responsibility of proving I’m wrong should go to the person challenging me.”
You can hope, but you would be wrong. When presenting an interpretation of a historical or literary text, especially one that goes contrary to accepted interpretations, it is for you to prove you’re right, and even then you should be hesitant. The ‘in so far as’ and other games you like so much don’t fly in the real world.
Meanwhile, here’s a link to another Dante research project:
And here are a result of the search for the word punish in the english translation of Inferno.
15 Matches
From Search On “Inferno”
For (String Match) “punish”
Inf V 43-45
Here and there, down and up, it drives them.
Never are they comforted by hope
of rest or even lesser punishment.
Inf VI 43-45
And I to him: ‘The punishment you suffer
may be blotting you from memory:
it doesn’t seem to me I’ve ever seen you.
Inf VII 19-21
Ah, Justice of God, who heaps up
such strange punishment and pain as I saw there?
And why do our sins so waste us?
Inf X 64-66
His words and the manner of his punishment
already had revealed his name to me,
and thus was my reply so to the point.
Inf XI 37-39
‘And so murderers and everyone who wounds
unjustly, spoilers and plunderers — the first ring
punishes all these in separate groups.
Inf XI 73-75
‘why are they not punished inside the fiery city
if God’s anger is upon them?
And if not, why are they so afflicted?’
Inf XI 85-87
‘If you consider well this judgment
and consider who they are
that suffer punishment above, outside the wall,
Inf XII 19-21
‘Get away, you beast, for this man
does not come tutored by your sister,
he comes to view your punishments.’
Inf XIV 64-66
‘you suffer greater punishment.
In your own anger lies your agony,
a fitting torment for your rage.’
Inf XIX 97-99
‘Stay there then, for you are justly punished,
guarding well those gains, ill-gotten,
that made you boldly take your stand against King Charles.
Inf XXVIII 130-132
‘You, who view the dead with breath yet in your body,
look upon my grievous punishment.
Is any other terrible as this?
Inf XXVIII 142-144
In me you may observe fit punishment.’
Inf XXIX 55-57:
into the pit, there where the minister
of God on high, unerring justice, punishes
the counterfeiters whom she here records.
Inf XXX 58-60:
‘O you who go unpunished here — I know not why —
through this world of misery,’
he said, ‘behold and then consider
Inf XXXIII 79-81:
Ah Pisa, how you shame the people
of that fair land where ‘sì’ is heard!
Since your neighbors are so slow to punish you,
————
“And here is a sample of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica. I have to thank you Mike for pushing me to peak at that text. I never had the opportunity or the diligence to do it when I was studying, and it is interesting to look at a scholastic text. The scholastics used to break down questions into questions and counter arguments which they then tried to resolve. Here is a relevant sample:
Article 2. Whether it is the same place where souls are cleansed, and the dámņëd punished?
Objection 1. It would seem that it is not the same place where souls are cleansed and the dámņëd punished. For the punishment of the dámņëd is eternal, according to Matthew 25:46, “These shall go into everlasting punishment [Vulg.: ‘fire’].” But the fire of Purgatory is temporary, as the Master says (Sent. iv, D, 21). Therefore the former and the latter are not punished together in the same place: and consequently these places must needs be distinct.
Objection 2. The punishment of hëll is called by various names, as in Ps. 10:7, “Fire and brimstone, and storms of winds,” etc., whereas the punishment of Purgatory is called by one name only, namely fire. Therefore they are not punished with the same fire and in the same place.
Objection 3. Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii, 16): “It is probable that they are punished in the very places where they sinned.” And Gregory relates (Dial. iv, 40) that Germanus, Bishop of Capua, found Paschasius being cleansed in the baths. Therefore they are not cleansed in the same place as hëll, but in this world.
On the contrary, Gregory says [The quotation is from St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei i, 8)]: “Even as in the same fire gold glistens and straw smokes, so in the same fire the sinner burns and the elect is cleansed.” Therefore the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hëll: and hence they are in the same place.
Further, the holy fathers; before the coming of Christ, were in a more worthy place than that wherein souls are now cleansed after death, since there was no pain of sense there. Yet that place was joined to hëll, or the same as hëll: otherwise Christ when descending into Limbo would not be said to have descended into hëll. Therefore Purgatory is either close to, or the same place as, hëll.
I answer that, Nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory, nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question. It is probable, however, and more in keeping with the statements of holy men and the revelations made to many, that there is a twofold place of Purgatory. One, according to the common law; and thus the place of Purgatory is situated below and in proximity to hëll, so that it is the same fire which torments the dámņëd in hëll and cleanses the just in Purgatory; although the dámņëd being lower in merit, are to be consigned to a lower place. Another place of Purgatory is according to dispensation: and thus sometimes, as we read, some are punished in various places, either that the living may learn, or that the dead may be succored, seeing that their punishment being made known to the living may be mitigated through the prayers of the Church.
Some say, however, that according to the common law the place of Purgatory is where man sins. This does not seem probable, since a man may be punished at the same time for sins committed in various places. And others say that according to the common law they are punished above us, because they are between us and God, as regards their state. But this is of no account, for they are not punished for being above us, but for that which is lowest in them, namely sin.
Reply to Objection 1. The fire of Purgatory is eternal in its substance, but temporary in its cleansing effect.
Reply to Objection 2. The punishment of hëll is for the purpose of affliction, wherefore it is called by the names of things that are wont to afflict us here. But the chief purpose of the punishment of Purgatory is to cleanse us from the remains of sin; and consequently the pain of fire only is ascribed to Purgatory, because fire cleanses and consumes.
Reply to Objection 3. This argument considers the point of special dispensation and not that of the common law.”
And here is another quote from the article you cited:
“Tragically, in the west a few centuries after the Great Schism (1054 AD) an innovation (i.e. heresy) developed as a result of an attempt to rationalize God’s purifying fires. Latin theologians surmised that God created a place called purgatory with purging fires to “purify” those that die with imperfect atonement, and they further rationalized that paying indulgences could buy your loved ones out of these painful purging fires faster. This rationalization also helped keep the church prosperous and coffers full.
The western ideas had its roots in Augustinian theology (who was influenced by the Greek pagan philosophers). Unfortunately Augustine could not read Greek and had to devise his own theology from imperfect Latin translations. Late in his life he recanted much of his earlier writings, an act which was ignored in the West. Both Luther and Calvin developed their own theologies from Augustine’s erroneous writings, and ignoring Augustine’s later retraction. This is how the pagan notion of a God that both punishes and rewards made its way into western Christian theologies. Another major influence was the 13th century fantasy novelist Dante, who’s political satire known as the Inferno borrowed heavily from pagan mythology and bears little resemblance to Biblical eschatology.”
Now I know this will have little effect on you, Mike. You will always prefer the little voices in your head. But I pretty much found and did what I wanted to do, and made the information available for everybody else here, so I’m done with you.
Jeffery, do you think this was responsive enough? do you think there’s any point to it (except for me to enrich myself)?
Micha: I think that enriching yourself is a good idea. If I could figure a way to enrich myself from this little square dance I would do so.
Seriously, I think this is an excellent effort. Thanks for taking the subject more seriously than most (all?). Beating up on St. Augustine seems like a good idea. I have some issues with St. Paul’s terror/hatred/contempt of women (You might like to read my long psycho-sexual theory, but can probably guess it) but think Augustine is an easier target to discredit.
“Thanks for taking the subject more seriously than most (all?).”
Most of the peole here are smart enough to know that it is pointless to try to have a discussion with Mike, or treat what he says seriously. I’m often the one who is too compulsive to let it go, especially if what he says is not evidently false but requires research to figure out.
“Beating up on St. Augustine seems like a good idea. I have some issues with St. Paul’s terror/hatred/contempt of women.”
I don’t want to pretend I know more than I do. My knowledge on these issues is very limited. So I can’t comment on this.
It should also be clear that whatever research I do in order to deal with Mike’s games is not exactly heavy research, just a litlle mental exercise.
“If I could figure a way to enrich myself from this little square dance I would do so.”
I found that trying to understand other people’s point of views, what they’re trying to say and where they come from is often very enriching.
Firstly, Mike: As far as I know, “eye for an eye” was from the Old Testament. Not saying they didn’t convieniently lift it, but….
As for Dante, was the Inferno looked at as a work of art, a religious peice or as a travelogue? By that I mean to say why is Dante’s version of Hëll any different from anyone else’s theory, and as such, why is it given any more credence? Not being smarmy, here, I just really don’t know.
Bill Myers: Try approaching some hottie and telling her, “Hey, I can skewer my online enemies with my rapier wit.” Oh, yeah, that’ll get you in the sack with her in a hurry.”
Would this be a story Jeannie would be familiar with, then? I mean, I can’t think of any OTHER reason for you two to be together….
As Bill has mentioned, Jeannie works with profoundly messed up people and has probably lowered her standards to the point that the first guy who didn’t smear feces on himself looked like quite the good catch.
Y’know, suddenly not only do those two make sense, but now I know why Stace’s put up with me for 10 years.
Those making the comparison between a soldier and a suicide bomber forget one other, key point which show how ludicrous the whole idea is.
The average suicide bomber takes about ten minutes to train and less money. “Here, put this on and, when you get to the mall, press here.”
Compare that with the hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) it takes to train fighter pilots or tank commanders. Even infantry in modern armies are VERY expensive to train, what with all the specialized combat gear and tactical training required. And they’re going to throw that away on a suicide run? Not bloody likely.
Micha, thank you for providing the single quote that makes my point:
On the contrary, Gregory says [The quotation is from St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei i, 8)]: “Even as in the same fire gold glistens and straw smokes, so in the same fire the sinner burns and the elect is cleansed.” Therefore the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hëll: and hence they are in the same place.
This idea was presented in the article I linked to you felt free to refer to: The “fire” as Aquinas knew it, in which the dámņëd languish, is the same glory in which the virtuous exult. As far as the light of God as Aquinas knew it is not inherently punitive, there simply is no sanctuary for the dámņëd — any punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll is simply unnecessary and meaningless.
When Neil Gaiman had Charles Rowland muse that hëll was something you take with you, he may have been referring to Aquinas. (On occasion, I’ll read, say, Sacks talking about how digitalis is a heart medicine is known as foxglove, and realize I’d come upon something that inspired him.)
Mike: Saying that a soldier’s first duty is to die for his country isn’t a typo or an unfortunate phrasing. It is a confusion between military service and a suicide cult. To call something a first duty is either to have considered it and ranked it as one’s primary obligation or to have no idea what the words mean in English.
People are not machines who adopt their judgments in the same sequence in which they are formed. As far as you don’t allow for any casualness in expression, and creativity depends on casualness in piecing judgments and observations together, you are oppressive to creativity — and for what virtue?
News Alert: Mike was right about one thing. In quoting him, I copied his “arguing as to discredit” as “arguing to discredit.” I couldn’t say what the difference is in meaning, but the quotation wasn’t correct…
As far as you could deny intent to “argue to discredit,” you could mitigate your discrediting your own position. “Arguing as to discredit” disregards your intent as to your failure to safeguard the principle of even application. That is how your falsely quoting me was self-serving.
If someone comes back and makes clear or tries to make clear what they were saying or meant to say and you just want to keep pounding away on the statement that they and others have left behind… Well, you’re a Mike.
Jerry, you could make it a first for one of your accusations aainst me, and cite a time when I’ve persisted to drive home a conceded point.
I should hope the responsibility of proving I’m wrong should go to the person challenging me — we have the option of not testifying against ourselves in America.
You can hope, but you would be wrong….
Micha are you so fragile you need to quote me with no indication you revised my text?
And here are a result of the search for the word punish in the english translation of Inferno.
Inf V 43-45
Here and there, down and up, it drives them.
Never are they comforted by hope
of rest or even lesser punishment.
Inf VI 43-45
And I to him: ‘The punishment you suffer
may be blotting you from memory:
it doesn’t seem to me I’ve ever seen you.
I never said the word punishment was absent from the Inferno.
We are disagreeing over whether there is a divine punitive agenda to the establishment of hëll as Dante presented it. Here Dante is simply referring to the suffering of the dámņëd. He hasn’t established divine intent.
Inf VII 19-21
Ah, Justice of God, who heaps up
such strange punishment and pain as I saw there? And why do our sins so waste us?
Line 21 suggests no punitive agenda. As for his word choice of “Justice of God.” Please review the preceding 3 lines:
Into the fourth hollow we made our way,
descending the dismal slope
that crams in all the evil of the universe.
As “Justice of God” wasn’t referring to anything specific, it seems as inconsistent as an atheist saying “god bless you” or “god dámņ it.” It happens.
His words and the manner of his punishment
already had revealed his name to me,
and thus was my reply so to the point.
Again, I never said the word punishment was absent from the Inferno. These lines refer to suffering, and not on any punitive measure.
Inf XI 37-39
‘And so murderers and everyone who wounds
unjustly, spoilers and plunderers — the first ring
punishes all these in separate groups.
Inf XI 73-75
‘why are they not punished inside the fiery city
if God’s anger is upon them?
And if not, why are they so afflicted?’
Inf XI 85-87
‘If you consider well this judgment
and consider who they are
that suffer punishment above, outside the wall,
If you want to refer to the segregation of souls by sin is a punitive agenda in establishing hëll, I guess there’s nothing I can say to dissuade you or anyone. As far as “our sins so waste us,” the “wasting” is not from a divine agenda.
Otherwise, Dante is asking why the usurers are included on the same side of the walls of Dis as the violent offenders. Even so, the so-called punishiments of hëll are simply to provide a location for the guilty to indulge in their appetites to the fullest extent, wherever they reside.
The other quotes seem to be addressed by my responses. If you’re really hard-pressed to get my reaction from any of them, let me know.
And here is a sample of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica. I have to thank you Mike for pushing me to peak at that text. I never had the opportunity or the diligence to do it when I was studying, and it is interesting to look at a scholastic text. The scholastics used to break down questions into questions and counter arguments which they then tried to resolve. Here is a relevant sample:
Micha, you’re mixing your words with your citations again. Your options are to link to the source, clarify, retreat, or be dismissed as “insists on having his word taken with a credibility not his own.”
As for Dante, was the Inferno looked at as a work of art, a religious peice or as a travelogue? By that I mean to say why is Dante’s version of Hëll any different from anyone else’s theory, and as such, why is it given any more credence? Not being smarmy, here, I just really don’t know.
Dante is like Shakespeare in that his is the body of work that made the single largest contribution to establish some standard of our conventions.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at May 17, 2007 09:57 AM
If not, there can be no argument for any kind of euthanasia. It would also seem to preclude any kind of military action that was not a cut and dried self defense action.
I’m not for the death penalty but I think there is a lot of difference, just as kidnapping a person is wrong but taking a kidnapper and forcing them to live in a prison is not.
I have to disagree. In euthanasia cases, you hopefully know the wishes of the patient. They’ve said they want to die, or they’ve stated that they would want to die if they ever found themselves in a particular state. Those are the cases which I can support without any reservations.
So there’s consent. Consent makes all the difference. Consent is the difference between making love and being raped, even though the same action is being taken.
When somebody is murdered, the victim doesn’t want to die. When somebody is executed by the state, the victim often (thought not always) doesn’t want to die. When there’s euthanasia, it’s often because the patient has said they want to die. In my view, that makes it more acceptable than the other two.
As for there being no military action beyond self-defense, that sounds pretty good to me.
rob, I have no disagreement with what you say, it was the statement “It’s more or less the same thing: you have somebody helpless, at your mercy, and you take their life. Is there a significant difference?” that gave me pause.
It’s true that in some, though not all euthanasia cases there is the element of consent. That would be a significant difference. One could also argue that the element of guilt would be a significant difference in a capital punishment case. The point is, the simple fact that the soon to be dead is helpless and at our mercy is apparently far less important than other details, such as how and why they have come to that situation.
As for there being no military action beyond self-defense, that sounds pretty good to me.
I was thinking more in the tactical sense of what a soldier must do–I don’t think they should necessarily wait until an enemy combatant is actually shooting at them to respond. You see a sniper in a tree you take him out; this isn’t high noon where everyone gets a sporting chance.
But I think we are mostly in agreement. If this thread shows anything it’s that slavish attention to nitpicking details is a probable sign of jackassery.
If this thread shows anything it’s that slavish attention to nitpicking details is a probable sign of jackassery.
Attention to detail provides a shelter against arbitrary accusations — which is a definite sign of jackassery.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 18, 2007 06:37 PM
If I could figure a way to enrich myself from this little square dance I would do so.
Your inability to figure out how to “enrich yourself” with “this little square dance” says more about you and your flaws then it does about the dance. And y’know, you’re always free to leave. I think I’m safe in saying that few, if any, would shed a tear if you did.
Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2007 10:19 AM
Attention to detail provides a shelter against arbitrary accusations — which is a definite sign of jackassery.
Well, Mike? Since we can’t take you at your word, why are you still here?
By the way, I know Mike is incapable of honesty. And I shouldn’t poke the troll. But I’ve realized something: like Micha, I derive some pleasure in watching idiots like Mike go through contortions to avoid facing the unpleasant truth about themselves. Noble? Nah. Fun? Oh, YEAH.
Jerry Chandler, Bill Mulligan, and Sean Scullion: it should be noted, for the record, that you all suck. Royally.
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 17, 2007 07:12 AM
I’m also curious as to whether the death penalty could be considered murder or not, whether you can distinguish between murdering somebody and executing somebody.
No, the death penalty cannot be considered murder, and yes you can distinguish between the two.
The Microsoft Encarta North American English Dictionary defines “murder” in the noun form as “the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law.” The death penalty is, by definition, a form of killing sanctioned by law and is thus not a form of murder.
Before anyone misunderstands: I am opposed to the death penalty. But words have meaning, and we should pay attention to those meanings in order to ensure meaningful communication.
I’m also curious as to whether the death penalty could be considered murder or not, whether you can distinguish between murdering somebody and executing somebody.
No, the death penalty cannot be considered murder, and yes you can distinguish between the two.
The Microsoft Encarta North American English Dictionary defines “murder” in the noun form as “the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law.” The death penalty is, by definition, a form of killing sanctioned by law and is thus not a form of murder.
Before anyone misunderstands: I am opposed to the death penalty. But words have meaning, and we should pay attention to those meanings in order to ensure meaningful communication.
As far as Rob’s question applies to the commandment not to murder, I don’t think the Microsoft dictionary can settle it.
The more relevant issue seems to be whether states and nations are subject to the commandments of God. Can a nation turn around and say “hold the plague — we made a law,” or whatever, and remove itself from the responsibility God imposes on individuals?
I’m gonna do something shocking — SHOCKING, I say! — and go back to the original thread topic.
Posted by: Jay Tea at May 15, 2007 12:14 PM
Looks like the signmaker ran out of room for the full message:
“WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE BUSH A BLØWJØB AND THEN GET HIM TO LIE UNDER OATH ABOUT IT SO WE CAN IMPEACH HIM!”
Shoulda got a bigger piece of cardboard — or written smaller at the outset.
That’s really no less incomplete than the original sign.
President Clinton allegedly lied about his affair with Lewinsky (I believe he continues to maintain that his statements were “legally accurate”) during a deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright later ruled that the issue of whether Clinton had such an affair was immaterial to the suit, however, which she subsequently dismissed because based on the “worst possible reading” of the facts, Ms. Jones simply had no case.
Admittedly, Judge Wright later ruled that Clinton was in contempt of court. But nevertheless, any lies he may have told pertaining to his affair with Lewinsky were immaterial to the Jones suit, and therefore those lies in no way denied Jones her right to have her case heard fairly by the courts.
That would definitely be too much to fit on a sign, though.
I’m gonna do something shocking — SHOCKING, I say! — and instead of letting Mikey impose his meaning on Rob Brown’s words, I’m going to ask Rob what he meant.
Rob, when you were asking about the distinction between “murder” and “the death penalty,” were you using “murder” in the context of the Sixth Commandment, or were you using the modern definition of “murder?” Or did you mean something else entirely?
By the way, I hope you don’t feel I’m trying to bait you. Quite the opposite. These are your words we’re discussing, and I’d rather ask you about your intended meaning rather than to let Mike try to “hijack” them on you.
“Rob, when you were asking about the distinction between “murder” and “the death penalty,” were you using “murder” in the context of the Sixth Commandment, or were you using the modern definition of “murder?” Or did you mean something else entirely?”
Does it really matter? Like the US today, the people who wrote the commandments did use capital punishment as part of their judicial system — and it is prescribed in the bible for certain crime — so it would seem they distinguished between murder and execution. (Although I’ve heard that Jewish law at a later time set such restrictions on capital punishment as to make it impossible, but they still had the distinction).
In any case, the question of wheather capital punishment constitutes murder is more of a political question than a linguistic one. Those who oppose it say that there isn’t much of a difference, those who support it say there is. This is not something that can be resolved by going to the dictionary, since the dictionary reflects the politics involved.
Those who oppose it say that there isn’t much of a difference, those who support it say there is.
Just to be clear, I both oppose it and recognize that there are clear differences between the death penalty and murder.
Micha, I had been wondering about how “murder” was defined in Biblical times but hadn’t the knowledge to discuss it. Thank you for providing some clarity.
I do disagree with you about the importance of the linguistic issue, though. One of the problems with political discussion is the abuse of language. Whether deliberate or not, it clouds the issues and makes meaningful communication and productive outcomes more difficult, if not impossible.
It may sound nitpicky of me to keep carping on the dictionary definition of “murder.” But whenever we start using words any which way, without respect to their actual meanings, I believe communication breaks down and progress soon follows.
If this annoys anyone or seems to nitpicky, I’m sorry. But I truly believe using words with imprecision is a bad thing. I’m not saying I’m never guilty of it — because I sometimes am. But I do feel it’s worth discussing.
Sweet Moses, talk about imprecise use of words!
When I wrote “…progress soon follows,” what I meant was “…the breakdown of progress soon follows.”
Wow. It’s hard to believe I once was a paid professional writer.
I think Bill Myers is correct about this one. When the Sixth Commandment was first written, the words used probably had a specific meaning which was known to the priests, or scribes or whoever read and copied the words. Because war was frequent, and the texts claim God ordered both warfare and capital punishment, it seems very probable that the words were not understood as forbidding anything God had instructed. There is a pesky strain of belief that God is not evil which runs through all of the Abrahamic religions.
Let me rephrase:
Among the opponents of capital punishment there are those who say that capital punishment is murder. Similarly, among vegetrians there are those who argue that eating meat is murder.
In both cases what we have is a moral/political statement mascarading as a linguistic statement.
I don’t see much use in replying with a dictionary definition of murder because it doesn’t really touch on the moral/political issue that is hiding behind the above statements. Instead you get a pointless discussion about language (imagine that).
In this situation the opponents of capital punishment who use this argument are acting diingenuously when they pretend that it is a linguistic issue. However, answering with a dictionary definition seems to me also disingenuous, since the distinction in our dictionaries between murder and capital punishment is reflective of the morals of the society we live in. A society opponents of capital punishment seek to change, sometimes using moral arguments that mascarade as linguistic arguments.
The issue of the exact language of the 6th commandment is relevant only if you’re a historian, a theologist, or believe itt is the word of god.
“When the Sixth Commandment was first written, the words used probably had a specific meaning which was known to the priests, or scribes or whoever read and copied the words. Because war was frequent, and the texts claim God ordered both warfare and capital punishment, it seems very probable that the words were not understood as forbidding anything God had instructed.”
Jeffrey, I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say here. The language of the hebrew bible is difficult sometimes, but it was not a secret language (to the best of my knowledge) but a spoken language. So there was no needd for priests in thast regard. It is true that since the bible was written countless interpreters have spent lifetimes trying to figure out and expand on every word and sentence.
I looked in a Hebrew dictionary, and it does not seem that he word ‘murder’ was used often in the hebrew bible. It seems to be used mostly for premeditated killing. It is no used to refer to the killing of Abel by Cain.
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 01:21 PM
Instead you get a pointless discussion about language (imagine that).
I didn’t think it was “pointless.” I thought it was a useful distinction to make.
This particular digression began with a remark about one poster’s perception of hypocrisy in Christians who accept capital punishment, despite the Sixth Commandment’s supposed prohibition against all killing. It evolved into a larger discussion of the distinctions we as a society draw today between killing in general and murder in particular. I thought the dictionary definition of the word would be helpful in clarifying that distinction. It wasn’t my intention to send us down any rabbit hole.
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 01:21 PM
However, answering with a dictionary definition seems to me also disingenuous, since the distinction in our dictionaries between murder and capital punishment is reflective of the morals of the society we live in.
“Disingenuous?” Micha, I’m sorry you saw no value in my post, but I assure you my intent was sincere.
Bill, I apologize. It was not my intention to attack you or accuse you of anything, or to say that what you say it without worth. I’m really not making myself clear today, and being also offensive. I’ll try to focus and explain myself again.
1) “perception of hypocrisy in Christians who accept capital punishment, despite the Sixth Commandment’s supposed prohibition against all killing.”
The simple answer is, like I said, that the Old testament and the commandment itself distinguishes between murder and capital punishment. And the societies in which these texts were written did in fact use capital punishment So, people who want to base their decision on capital punishment on the commandments and the Old Testament can certainly do so. I know less of the New Testament, but I suspect it is also true here, despite certain famous lines about vengence and turning the other cheek.
However, I must also say respectfully, without wanting to offend anyone, and without criticizing any person but just a form of argument, that I don’t think it is an argument you should make in the discussion about capital punishment, especially if you’re not yourself following the authority of scripture.
First, because, if you are not a believer, you will probably reject the authority of scripture if it turns out that it not only supports, but recommends the use of capital punishment.
Secondly, because it feels wrong to me to argue about a theology I don’t believe with with believers. In a strange way it seems to me to show disrespect toward the religion (and its official interpreters) while at the same time showing it too much respect. If I present an argument against capital punishment, I prefer it to come from my moral system.
Thirdly, if 2000 years of interpretation of the sacred texts has taught as anything, it’s that the bible is very flexible, and it is open for many possible interpretations. There’s a Hebrew expression: ‘the Torah has 70 faces’. So, the interpretation people pick, whether it is about capital punishment or homosexuality or anything else is usually a reflection of their attitudes in the present. This is true of the most fundemntalist christians (or Jews) as well as the more modern minded. So it seems to me that the discussion should be kept in the present (but with respect to the religiosity of the sides of the argument), and that interpretation will adapt if and when moral attitudes in society change.
2) “It evolved into a larger discussion of the distinctions we as a society draw today between killing in general and murder in particular. I thought the dictionary definition of the word would be helpful in clarifying that distinction.”
In that case Bill was right and I was wrong. The distinction that exists in our society between capital punishment and murder, as manifest in the dictionary definition, is important to the discussion. I overreacted, because it seems to me that in so many political arguments, and arguments in general, the discussion is shifted into semantics and language games instead of the real issues and meanings behind the words. This sometimes is done by people who are being disingenuous, or by people who get caught up in their own rhetoric, and at other times by people acting sincerely but nevertheless diverting the discussion in a direction I personaly don’t consider productive. In your case Bill, I don’t suspect you of being disingenuous, and I was also wrong to say that it was pointless.
That said, the dictionary can only articulate for us the moral distinction that exists in our society today (and has existed in the past) between murder and capital punishment — a distinction some would like to see eliminated. Moreover, I do feel it is necessary to realize that the dictionary definition is only a reflection of a moral, not linguistic, distinction that is the substance of our discussion. The real discussion, on the moral questions behind the words is still before us.
So, I hope this time I’ve made myself clearer without being offensive. If not, I apologize before hand. I’m a little unfocused today.
On an unrelated note, my sister is visiting from Berkeley tomorrow.
Actually, it’s not as cut-and-dried as that. In some English translations of the Bible, the commandment reads “you shall not murder.” This actually makes more sense in the context of other portions of the Bible, such as in DeuteronomyM/strong> where God is said to have allowed the Israelites to wage war and to have given them instructions on warfare. Many biblical scholars believe “you shall not murder” is a more accurate translation for that reason.
I see. Oy. It’s troubling to think what can happen when a single word is translated the wrong way.
The thing that occurs to me is that Jesus didn’t seem particularly hawkish. So if a Christian is basing his or her faith primarily on the New Testament instead of the Old (which I recall Lenny Briscoe describing as “blood and guts” in one “Law & Order” episode), should they sometimes be pro-war, or should they be more pacifistic?
I’m also curious as to whether the death penalty could be considered murder or not, whether you can distinguish between murdering somebody and executing somebody. It’s more or less the same thing: you have somebody helpless, at your mercy, and you take their life. Is there a significant difference?
No, the death penalty cannot be considered murder, and yes you can distinguish between the two.
The Microsoft Encarta North American English Dictionary defines “murder” in the noun form as “the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law.” The death penalty is, by definition, a form of killing sanctioned by law and is thus not a form of murder.
As far as Rob’s question applies to the commandment not to murder, I don’t think the Microsoft dictionary can settle it.
I’m gonna do something shocking — SHOCKING, I say! — and instead of letting Mikey impose his meaning on Rob Brown’s words, I’m going to ask Rob what he meant.
Rob, when you were asking about the distinction between “murder” and “the death penalty,” were you using “murder” in the context of the Sixth Commandment, or were you using the modern definition of “murder?” Or did you mean something else entirely?
By the way, I hope you don’t feel I’m trying to bait you. Quite the opposite. These are your words we’re discussing, and I’d rather ask you about your intended meaning rather than to let Mike try to “hijack” them on you.
…I had been wondering about how “murder” was defined in Biblical times but hadn’t the knowledge to discuss it.
Checking in with someone over his own words is fine, but there isn’t anything wrong with me for inferring Rob’s meaning — considering he was responding to your own post referring to the commandment not to murder.
Your accusation was indulgent. Who’s supposed to tolerate an arbitrary accusation?
“The Microsoft Encarta North American English Dictionary defines “murder”…”
I wonder if that might be part of the problem. No matter the actual, official, dictionary definition of a word, sometimes in the vernacular the meaning can be inclusive of much, much more. Case in point, those that consider abortion murder. Those that do squeeze more out of that definition so that it fits their own personal perception. Hence so many things anymore being stated and overstated in such verbose legalese that most people get lost trying to take it as a whole. Could be that some people hope for that anyway. Also, I can’t help but wonder if there’s a certain limitation to this form of conversation, in that when some people read something they expect a much more formal use of speech than in normal, verbal conversation.
Or, I could just overthinking again. The smoke alarms ARE going off…wonder if that means something?
Posted by: Bill Myers at May 19, 2007 10:46 AM
Jerry Chandler, Bill Mulligan, and Sean Scullion: it should be noted, for the record, that you all suck. Royally.
I call dibs on Kurt’s old music as my official blog theme. He ain’t doing it any good these days.
I wonder if that might be part of the problem. No matter the actual, official, dictionary definition of a word, sometimes in the vernacular the meaning can be inclusive of much, much more. Case in point, those that consider abortion murder. Those that do squeeze more out of that definition so that it fits their own personal perception. Hence so many things anymore being stated and overstated in such verbose legalese that most people get lost trying to take it as a whole. Could be that some people hope for that anyway. Also, I can’t help but wonder if there’s a certain limitation to this form of conversation, in that when some people read something they expect a much more formal use of speech than in normal, verbal conversation.
Consider people who have never experienced sight. They live in a completely sequential world, where the objects in their living room simply do not exist until they encounter them. For those who are then given sight, they are moved to a non-sequential world, where they not only see the objects in their rooms that still don’t exist to them as they previously understood existence, but the traffic outside their windows, as well as the mountains miles away, and the airplanes in the sky that prompt the subject to reach out to touch them. I’ve heard of more than one occasion of such a patient asking to be blinded again.
So language is a sequencial codification of our non-sequential experiences, and isn’t all things to anyone. The Tao Te Ching opens saying the way that can be spoken is not the true way — before it goes on for 81 chapters, because representational narrative is only one game in town.
Without imposing my own opinion on abortion, I think that the equation of abortion with murder depends much more on one’s personal definition of “person” than that of “deliberately and not in self defense.” That it is deliberate should be unquestionable. More frequently than not, it is not in self defense. Because of that, the real question is whether what is being destroyed is human life. Any answer to that comes from personal definition of human life, rather than linguistics. The question of whether the proper translation of the original Hebrew should be “kill,” “murder” or something in between (“wrongly kill?” That seems too self-referential – “Don’t do what you really hadn’t ought to”) is an excellent one, but the abortion debate cannot be settled with this question. There are quite enough other homicides, or other-things-icides, as the case may be, to which the Sixth Commandment conundrum can be applied.
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 05:28 PM
I’m really not making myself clear today, and being also offensive.
Don’t blame yourself. Yesterday was the nadir of a really bad week, and my negative emotions were coloring my perceptions of everything. I think it was less a case of you being offensive and far more one of me being hyper-sensitive. I’m the one who should apologize. So: I’m sorry.
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 05:28 PM
However, I must also say respectfully, without wanting to offend anyone, and without criticizing any person but just a form of argument, that I don’t think it is an argument you should make in the discussion about capital punishment, especially if you’re not yourself following the authority of scripture.
Point taken. I was a devout Catholic until the age of 16, at which time I abandoned religion and have never found any compelling reason to return to it. While I reject many Christian precepts, however, I nevertheless believe it is unfair to attempt to put Christians in a rhetorical box with respect to the death penalty. That’s why I cited the two different English translations of the Sixth Amendment — “Thou Shalt Not Kill” vs. “Thou Shalt Not Murder” — and pointed out that the latter seems to make more sense when you look at other Biblical passages related to killing.
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 05:28 PM
Secondly, because it feels wrong to me to argue about a theology I don’t believe with with believers. In a strange way it seems to me to show disrespect toward the religion (and its official interpreters) while at the same time showing it too much respect.
Yes and no. I know enough about Christianity to know that the issue of how the Bible treats killing is not cut-and-dried. While I disagree with Christians in many ways (for instance, I don’t believe that acknowledging Christ as my personal savior is a requisite for salvation, which is by definition the foundation of all forms of Christianity), I don’t think it is fair to attempt to back them into a rhetorical corner. Knowing what I know, I felt I should speak up.
(By the way, Rob Brown, I don’t believe it was your intent to box anyone in. Your statement was honest, but simply didn’t take into account certain facts. I don’t want you to feel like I’m pounding on you again. I’ve already done too much of that and regret the hëll out of it. Not that it excuses anything, but I was having an awful week and unfortunately you caught some of the brunt of it.)
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 05:28 PM
Thirdly, if 2000 years of interpretation of the sacred texts has taught as anything, it’s that the bible is very flexible, and it is open for many possible interpretations.
Agreed. That, again, is why I stepped up and offered what knowledge I have. While I disagree with Christianity, and take offense at the attitudes of some Christians (not all, not even the majority, but some), it is not necessarily hypocritical for a Christian to support the death penalty.
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 05:28 PM
In that case Bill was right and I was wrong.
As I said in an earlier post, this ain’t a court of law or a debate team. I don’t see any reason to look for a clear “right” or “wrong” outcome to our current digression about linguistics vs. morality. Frankly, I think you made some very good points. Words have both denotative meaning (i.e. the “dictionary meaning”) and connotative meaning (i.e. the meaning individuals invest in them). It may well have been “disingenuous” of me to omit that from the discussion. 😉
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 05:28 PM
The distinction that exists in our society between capital punishment and murder, as manifest in the dictionary definition, is important to the discussion.
Perhaps. I probably could have expressed my thoughts with more clarity and precision, though. I think the linguistic distinction between capital punishment and murder exists because of the substantive difference between a thug killing someone in a drive-by shooting, and the state executing someone after a lengthy judicial process. I personally believe both acts are wrong, but conflating them does nothing to advance the discussion.
Nevertheless, you were asking me not to fixate on minutae. Don’t apologize for that. You were helping keep the discussion on a productive track. I tend to drown in the details sometimes.
I think there’s been a lot of tension here of late, in part due to a recent uptick in trolling activity. Oh, and due in part also to some jáçkášš named Bill Myers bringing a bad mood to this board. I think you and I can both draw a deep breath and relax, Micha. As per usual, your thoughts have served to help me shape mine. So keep doing what you’re doing, and don’t worry about being “offensive.” You’re one of the most inoffensive people here. 🙂
• 
Sean Martin – At least give Bill Myers credit for saying what he meant very clearly. I think you missed his point – which isn’t very easy to do, unless you try very hard. Obviously I don’t agree with him, but I understood his words – which were, as far as I could see, spelled correctly.
American soldiers are duty-bound to put the constitution above their own life — it’s part of their swearing in. It seems no challange to intuit Bobb meant that. If you aren’t so fragile as to disallow him from rephrasing — or needing to hold typos against the commenter — his doing so should settle the issue.
Mike: Saying that a soldier’s first duty is to die for his country isn’t a typo or an unfortunate phrasing. It is a confusion between military service and a suicide cult. To call something a first duty is either to have considered it and ranked it as one’s primary obligation or to have no idea what the words mean in English.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 18, 2007 03:58 PM
Sean Martin – At least give Bill Myers credit for saying what he meant very clearly. I think you missed his point – which isn’t very easy to do, unless you try very hard. Obviously I don’t agree with him, but I understood his words – which were, as far as I could see, spelled correctly.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 18, 2007 03:52 PM
“It’s a sodlier’s first duty to die for his country” (no ellipsis, and no spellcheck) is what Bobb Alfred said.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
By the way Jeffrey, “spellcheck” is properly spelled as “spell check”. It’s two words. Since you just so love pointing out the typo errors of others…
~8?)
News Alert: Mike was right about one thing. In quoting him, I copied his “arguing as to discredit” as “arguing to discredit.” I couldn’t say what the difference is in meaning, but the quotation wasn’t correct…
Posted by: Sean Martin at May 18, 2007 03:50 PM
So clearly you are supporting Jeffery Frawley’s approach. I mean, that is what you just wrote, right?
I can’t tell whether you’re being sarcastic or not. So, just to be safe, let me clarify: I was being sarcastic. I was trying to point out that none of us can actually, y’know, win anything tangible here. That being the case, I think we’re better off pursuing honest communication which requires a good-faith attempt to understand your “opponent,” even if you disagree with him or her.
But I have a feeling those who don’t need to hear this will get turned off, and those who do need to hear it have already turned off. So thus ends my sermonette. I return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast day.
To call something a first duty is either to have considered it and ranked it as one’s primary obligation or to have no idea what the words mean in English.
The man has posted since then to try and make clear what he meant VS what he first typed.
“That was poorly thought out.”
“That wasn’t as clear as I had hoped.”
“That wasn’t phrased as well as it should have been.”
“My brain was fried when I posted that one.”
Things like this get said here a lot. Everybody has a bad post or even a bad day when it comes to brain-to-finger-to-blog thoughts. If someone comes back and makes clear or tries to make clear what they were saying or meant to say and you just want to keep pounding away on the statement that they and others have left behind… Well, you’re a Mike.
Get over it already.
Jeffrey Frawley: Sean Martin – At least give Bill Myers credit for saying what he meant very clearly. I think you missed his point
Uh, I think you missed mine. Bill was commenting on a tendency to nit pick actual work choice rather than intent, so naturally I nit picked his word choice to claim he was expressing exactly the opposite opinion of what he actually meant.
In other words, it was a joke. Ain’t’cha gots no sensa hyoouma?
“Spellcheck” was a typo. Mea maxima culpa. “First duty” is something else. “First” and “duty” are small, very easily defined words. I’m not looking to make friends here (Those I respect would probably prefer that I keep it to myself), and I can’t fool myself that I’m going to change very many people’s minds. (Last year PAD said it was never possible to convince anyone of anything, but I doubt that is accurate.) I do wonder, however, whether it’s all right with Jerry Chandler if I express my opinions as I wish. Bill Myers will certainly recognize the sarcasm here, and I have no reason to think Jerry Chandler will have a problem there, so this heads up must be for Sean Martin.
Cutting the jokes for a minute, “That wasn’t as clear as I had hoped” is something one says when one is misunderstood, not when one realizes one’s opinion is foolish.
Bill Myers: Posted by: Sean Martin at May 18, 2007 03:50 PM
So clearly you are supporting Jeffery Frawley’s approach. I mean, that is what you just wrote, right?
I can’t tell whether you’re being sarcastic or not.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic. Sorry that wasn’t as clear as I though t it would be.
Perhaps folks are getting a little sensitive to having their own specific word choices being taken to literally and are starting to do it themselves?
Sean Martin: … Jeffery Frawley…
Jeffrey Frawley: but I understood his words – which were, as far as I could see, spelled correctly.
Jeffrey Frawley: “Spellcheck” was a typo. Mea maxima culpa.
Not a bit deal. Wouldn’t you agree that picking on someone over a obvious typo is petty?
No, “not a bit (sic) deal” at all – not even over “a (sic) obvious typo”!
Jeffrey Frawley: so this heads up must be for Sean Martin.
Huh? Me? Until just now I haven’t made any posts regarding Dante or “first duties” and only one (apparently misunderstood) brief sarcastic posting about the nit picking going on. And *I’m* the one getting a heads up about whether one can change people’s minds?
Jeffrey Frawley: Cutting the jokes for a minute, “That wasn’t as clear as I had hoped” is something one says when one is misunderstood, not when one realizes one’s opinion is foolish.
Exactly. And it doesn’t seem to me that anyone was suggesting otherwise.
That wasn’t as clear as I had hoped” is something one says when one is misunderstood, not when one realizes one’s opinion is foolish.
Not always. Lots of us discuss topics here that we discuss at length with others elsewhere. Sometimes we don’t fully think about what we’re typing and we shorthand something that we’re used to saying elsewhere. You can also get used to saying something that you know what it means, but it misses the mark when out of context.
I disagree with the idea that a soldier’s first duty is to die for one’s country. I said as much when Bobb first posted the statement. He then went to explain what he meant by that. The idea that a soldier should know that he has a better then average chance of death in combat simply because he signed a dotted line and became a soldier can be expressed, if poorly so, as having your first duty being the chance to die for your country. Not the best way to say it and not the clearest way to say what Bobb claimed he meant, but I can see where he could have being saying something other then what he posted in B&W.
Maybe I’m willing to cut more slack on this type of phrasing because I get it all the time. People always talk about how cops sign up for a job where they’ll put their lives on the line to protect others. Well, yeah… kinda. I don’t know many cops who wanted to be cops so that they could risk their lives and maybe die defending others. You know it’s a chance, but it’s not why you become a cop. It’s not the desciption of the job either. But it’s true enough in the way people use it and in the context of how they explain what they mean by it.
Bobb said something in a sloppy manner. I didn’t agree with it either. Bobb came back and made clear what he was thinking and meant to say in full context. I could then see the point he was trying to make. Anybody who isn’t actually trying not to get it should be able to get it and move on from there. Now, can we move the debate on from here before it gets as old as as a thread hijacked by a Mike debate?
Posted by: Sean Martin at May 18, 2007 05:20 PM
Yeah, I was being sarcastic. Sorry that wasn’t as clear as I though t it would be.
No. No dice. You said what you said and I’m going to take it literally and hold it against you for eternity. Because I’m SURE that will make me the coolest person around. 😉
Bill Myers: No. No dice. You said what you said
Ðámņ. Now I’m marked forever.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 18, 2007 05:13 PM
Cutting the jokes for a minute, “That wasn’t as clear as I had hoped” is something one says when one is misunderstood, not when one realizes one’s opinion is foolish.
True. The problem is you are not very good at distinguishing between the two. Keep it up and you will end up like Mike in short order, with very few people engaging you because they’ve realized you’re a waste of time.
It’s a sodlier’s first duty to die for his country.
To paraphrase George C. Scott in Patton: No, his first duty to make the other poor bášŧárd die for his country.
Mike: “I should hope the responsibility of proving I’m wrong should go to the person challenging me.”
You can hope, but you would be wrong. When presenting an interpretation of a historical or literary text, especially one that goes contrary to accepted interpretations, it is for you to prove you’re right, and even then you should be hesitant. The ‘in so far as’ and other games you like so much don’t fly in the real world.
Meanwhile, here’s a link to another Dante research project:
http://etcweb.princeton.edu/dante/pdp/
And here are a result of the search for the word punish in the english translation of Inferno.
15 Matches
From Search On “Inferno”
For (String Match) “punish”
Inf V 43-45
Here and there, down and up, it drives them.
Never are they comforted by hope
of rest or even lesser punishment.
Inf VI 43-45
And I to him: ‘The punishment you suffer
may be blotting you from memory:
it doesn’t seem to me I’ve ever seen you.
Inf VII 19-21
Ah, Justice of God, who heaps up
such strange punishment and pain as I saw there?
And why do our sins so waste us?
Inf X 64-66
His words and the manner of his punishment
already had revealed his name to me,
and thus was my reply so to the point.
Inf XI 37-39
‘And so murderers and everyone who wounds
unjustly, spoilers and plunderers — the first ring
punishes all these in separate groups.
Inf XI 73-75
‘why are they not punished inside the fiery city
if God’s anger is upon them?
And if not, why are they so afflicted?’
Inf XI 85-87
‘If you consider well this judgment
and consider who they are
that suffer punishment above, outside the wall,
Inf XII 19-21
‘Get away, you beast, for this man
does not come tutored by your sister,
he comes to view your punishments.’
Inf XIV 64-66
‘you suffer greater punishment.
In your own anger lies your agony,
a fitting torment for your rage.’
Inf XIX 97-99
‘Stay there then, for you are justly punished,
guarding well those gains, ill-gotten,
that made you boldly take your stand against King Charles.
Inf XXVIII 130-132
‘You, who view the dead with breath yet in your body,
look upon my grievous punishment.
Is any other terrible as this?
Inf XXVIII 142-144
In me you may observe fit punishment.’
Inf XXIX 55-57:
into the pit, there where the minister
of God on high, unerring justice, punishes
the counterfeiters whom she here records.
Inf XXX 58-60:
‘O you who go unpunished here — I know not why —
through this world of misery,’
he said, ‘behold and then consider
Inf XXXIII 79-81:
Ah Pisa, how you shame the people
of that fair land where ‘sì’ is heard!
Since your neighbors are so slow to punish you,
————
“And here is a sample of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica. I have to thank you Mike for pushing me to peak at that text. I never had the opportunity or the diligence to do it when I was studying, and it is interesting to look at a scholastic text. The scholastics used to break down questions into questions and counter arguments which they then tried to resolve. Here is a relevant sample:
Article 2. Whether it is the same place where souls are cleansed, and the dámņëd punished?
Objection 1. It would seem that it is not the same place where souls are cleansed and the dámņëd punished. For the punishment of the dámņëd is eternal, according to Matthew 25:46, “These shall go into everlasting punishment [Vulg.: ‘fire’].” But the fire of Purgatory is temporary, as the Master says (Sent. iv, D, 21). Therefore the former and the latter are not punished together in the same place: and consequently these places must needs be distinct.
Objection 2. The punishment of hëll is called by various names, as in Ps. 10:7, “Fire and brimstone, and storms of winds,” etc., whereas the punishment of Purgatory is called by one name only, namely fire. Therefore they are not punished with the same fire and in the same place.
Objection 3. Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii, 16): “It is probable that they are punished in the very places where they sinned.” And Gregory relates (Dial. iv, 40) that Germanus, Bishop of Capua, found Paschasius being cleansed in the baths. Therefore they are not cleansed in the same place as hëll, but in this world.
On the contrary, Gregory says [The quotation is from St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei i, 8)]: “Even as in the same fire gold glistens and straw smokes, so in the same fire the sinner burns and the elect is cleansed.” Therefore the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hëll: and hence they are in the same place.
Further, the holy fathers; before the coming of Christ, were in a more worthy place than that wherein souls are now cleansed after death, since there was no pain of sense there. Yet that place was joined to hëll, or the same as hëll: otherwise Christ when descending into Limbo would not be said to have descended into hëll. Therefore Purgatory is either close to, or the same place as, hëll.
I answer that, Nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory, nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question. It is probable, however, and more in keeping with the statements of holy men and the revelations made to many, that there is a twofold place of Purgatory. One, according to the common law; and thus the place of Purgatory is situated below and in proximity to hëll, so that it is the same fire which torments the dámņëd in hëll and cleanses the just in Purgatory; although the dámņëd being lower in merit, are to be consigned to a lower place. Another place of Purgatory is according to dispensation: and thus sometimes, as we read, some are punished in various places, either that the living may learn, or that the dead may be succored, seeing that their punishment being made known to the living may be mitigated through the prayers of the Church.
Some say, however, that according to the common law the place of Purgatory is where man sins. This does not seem probable, since a man may be punished at the same time for sins committed in various places. And others say that according to the common law they are punished above us, because they are between us and God, as regards their state. But this is of no account, for they are not punished for being above us, but for that which is lowest in them, namely sin.
Reply to Objection 1. The fire of Purgatory is eternal in its substance, but temporary in its cleansing effect.
Reply to Objection 2. The punishment of hëll is for the purpose of affliction, wherefore it is called by the names of things that are wont to afflict us here. But the chief purpose of the punishment of Purgatory is to cleanse us from the remains of sin; and consequently the pain of fire only is ascribed to Purgatory, because fire cleanses and consumes.
Reply to Objection 3. This argument considers the point of special dispensation and not that of the common law.”
And here is another quote from the article you cited:
“Tragically, in the west a few centuries after the Great Schism (1054 AD) an innovation (i.e. heresy) developed as a result of an attempt to rationalize God’s purifying fires. Latin theologians surmised that God created a place called purgatory with purging fires to “purify” those that die with imperfect atonement, and they further rationalized that paying indulgences could buy your loved ones out of these painful purging fires faster. This rationalization also helped keep the church prosperous and coffers full.
The western ideas had its roots in Augustinian theology (who was influenced by the Greek pagan philosophers). Unfortunately Augustine could not read Greek and had to devise his own theology from imperfect Latin translations. Late in his life he recanted much of his earlier writings, an act which was ignored in the West. Both Luther and Calvin developed their own theologies from Augustine’s erroneous writings, and ignoring Augustine’s later retraction. This is how the pagan notion of a God that both punishes and rewards made its way into western Christian theologies. Another major influence was the 13th century fantasy novelist Dante, who’s political satire known as the Inferno borrowed heavily from pagan mythology and bears little resemblance to Biblical eschatology.”
Now I know this will have little effect on you, Mike. You will always prefer the little voices in your head. But I pretty much found and did what I wanted to do, and made the information available for everybody else here, so I’m done with you.
Jeffery, do you think this was responsive enough? do you think there’s any point to it (except for me to enrich myself)?
Micha: I think that enriching yourself is a good idea. If I could figure a way to enrich myself from this little square dance I would do so.
Seriously, I think this is an excellent effort. Thanks for taking the subject more seriously than most (all?). Beating up on St. Augustine seems like a good idea. I have some issues with St. Paul’s terror/hatred/contempt of women (You might like to read my long psycho-sexual theory, but can probably guess it) but think Augustine is an easier target to discredit.
“Thanks for taking the subject more seriously than most (all?).”
Most of the peole here are smart enough to know that it is pointless to try to have a discussion with Mike, or treat what he says seriously. I’m often the one who is too compulsive to let it go, especially if what he says is not evidently false but requires research to figure out.
“Beating up on St. Augustine seems like a good idea. I have some issues with St. Paul’s terror/hatred/contempt of women.”
I don’t want to pretend I know more than I do. My knowledge on these issues is very limited. So I can’t comment on this.
It should also be clear that whatever research I do in order to deal with Mike’s games is not exactly heavy research, just a litlle mental exercise.
“If I could figure a way to enrich myself from this little square dance I would do so.”
I found that trying to understand other people’s point of views, what they’re trying to say and where they come from is often very enriching.
Firstly, Mike: As far as I know, “eye for an eye” was from the Old Testament. Not saying they didn’t convieniently lift it, but….
As for Dante, was the Inferno looked at as a work of art, a religious peice or as a travelogue? By that I mean to say why is Dante’s version of Hëll any different from anyone else’s theory, and as such, why is it given any more credence? Not being smarmy, here, I just really don’t know.
Bill Myers: Try approaching some hottie and telling her, “Hey, I can skewer my online enemies with my rapier wit.” Oh, yeah, that’ll get you in the sack with her in a hurry.”
Would this be a story Jeannie would be familiar with, then? I mean, I can’t think of any OTHER reason for you two to be together….
As Bill has mentioned, Jeannie works with profoundly messed up people and has probably lowered her standards to the point that the first guy who didn’t smear feces on himself looked like quite the good catch.
Y’know, suddenly not only do those two make sense, but now I know why Stace’s put up with me for 10 years.
Those making the comparison between a soldier and a suicide bomber forget one other, key point which show how ludicrous the whole idea is.
The average suicide bomber takes about ten minutes to train and less money. “Here, put this on and, when you get to the mall, press here.”
Compare that with the hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) it takes to train fighter pilots or tank commanders. Even infantry in modern armies are VERY expensive to train, what with all the specialized combat gear and tactical training required. And they’re going to throw that away on a suicide run? Not bloody likely.
Micha, thank you for providing the single quote that makes my point:
This idea was presented in the article I linked to you felt free to refer to: The “fire” as Aquinas knew it, in which the dámņëd languish, is the same glory in which the virtuous exult. As far as the light of God as Aquinas knew it is not inherently punitive, there simply is no sanctuary for the dámņëd — any punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll is simply unnecessary and meaningless.
When Neil Gaiman had Charles Rowland muse that hëll was something you take with you, he may have been referring to Aquinas. (On occasion, I’ll read, say, Sacks talking about how digitalis is a heart medicine is known as foxglove, and realize I’d come upon something that inspired him.)
People are not machines who adopt their judgments in the same sequence in which they are formed. As far as you don’t allow for any casualness in expression, and creativity depends on casualness in piecing judgments and observations together, you are oppressive to creativity — and for what virtue?
As far as you could deny intent to “argue to discredit,” you could mitigate your discrediting your own position. “Arguing as to discredit” disregards your intent as to your failure to safeguard the principle of even application. That is how your falsely quoting me was self-serving.
Jerry, you could make it a first for one of your accusations aainst me, and cite a time when I’ve persisted to drive home a conceded point.
Micha are you so fragile you need to quote me with no indication you revised my text?
I never said the word punishment was absent from the Inferno.
We are disagreeing over whether there is a divine punitive agenda to the establishment of hëll as Dante presented it. Here Dante is simply referring to the suffering of the dámņëd. He hasn’t established divine intent.
Line 21 suggests no punitive agenda. As for his word choice of “Justice of God.” Please review the preceding 3 lines:
As “Justice of God” wasn’t referring to anything specific, it seems as inconsistent as an atheist saying “god bless you” or “god dámņ it.” It happens.
Again, I never said the word punishment was absent from the Inferno. These lines refer to suffering, and not on any punitive measure.
If you want to refer to the segregation of souls by sin is a punitive agenda in establishing hëll, I guess there’s nothing I can say to dissuade you or anyone. As far as “our sins so waste us,” the “wasting” is not from a divine agenda.
Otherwise, Dante is asking why the usurers are included on the same side of the walls of Dis as the violent offenders. Even so, the so-called punishiments of hëll are simply to provide a location for the guilty to indulge in their appetites to the fullest extent, wherever they reside.
The other quotes seem to be addressed by my responses. If you’re really hard-pressed to get my reaction from any of them, let me know.
Micha, you’re mixing your words with your citations again. Your options are to link to the source, clarify, retreat, or be dismissed as “insists on having his word taken with a credibility not his own.”
Dante is like Shakespeare in that his is the body of work that made the single largest contribution to establish some standard of our conventions.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at May 17, 2007 09:57 AM
If not, there can be no argument for any kind of euthanasia. It would also seem to preclude any kind of military action that was not a cut and dried self defense action.
I’m not for the death penalty but I think there is a lot of difference, just as kidnapping a person is wrong but taking a kidnapper and forcing them to live in a prison is not.
I have to disagree. In euthanasia cases, you hopefully know the wishes of the patient. They’ve said they want to die, or they’ve stated that they would want to die if they ever found themselves in a particular state. Those are the cases which I can support without any reservations.
So there’s consent. Consent makes all the difference. Consent is the difference between making love and being raped, even though the same action is being taken.
When somebody is murdered, the victim doesn’t want to die. When somebody is executed by the state, the victim often (thought not always) doesn’t want to die. When there’s euthanasia, it’s often because the patient has said they want to die. In my view, that makes it more acceptable than the other two.
As for there being no military action beyond self-defense, that sounds pretty good to me.
rob, I have no disagreement with what you say, it was the statement “It’s more or less the same thing: you have somebody helpless, at your mercy, and you take their life. Is there a significant difference?” that gave me pause.
It’s true that in some, though not all euthanasia cases there is the element of consent. That would be a significant difference. One could also argue that the element of guilt would be a significant difference in a capital punishment case. The point is, the simple fact that the soon to be dead is helpless and at our mercy is apparently far less important than other details, such as how and why they have come to that situation.
As for there being no military action beyond self-defense, that sounds pretty good to me.
I was thinking more in the tactical sense of what a soldier must do–I don’t think they should necessarily wait until an enemy combatant is actually shooting at them to respond. You see a sniper in a tree you take him out; this isn’t high noon where everyone gets a sporting chance.
But I think we are mostly in agreement. If this thread shows anything it’s that slavish attention to nitpicking details is a probable sign of jackassery.
Attention to detail provides a shelter against arbitrary accusations — which is a definite sign of jackassery.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 18, 2007 06:37 PM
If I could figure a way to enrich myself from this little square dance I would do so.
Your inability to figure out how to “enrich yourself” with “this little square dance” says more about you and your flaws then it does about the dance. And y’know, you’re always free to leave. I think I’m safe in saying that few, if any, would shed a tear if you did.
Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2007 10:19 AM
Attention to detail provides a shelter against arbitrary accusations — which is a definite sign of jackassery.
Okay, then. How’s this for attention to detail? Here’s a post of yours in a prior thread
in which you vow that we would “hear less from [you], if at all.”
Now, here’s a post in a subsequent thread
in which you deny having made any such vow, even though said vow is on record.
You frequently challenge others’ integrity, using phrases such as, “If we can’t take you at your word — why are you here?”
Well, Mike? Since we can’t take you at your word, why are you still here?
By the way, I know Mike is incapable of honesty. And I shouldn’t poke the troll. But I’ve realized something: like Micha, I derive some pleasure in watching idiots like Mike go through contortions to avoid facing the unpleasant truth about themselves. Noble? Nah. Fun? Oh, YEAH.
Jerry Chandler, Bill Mulligan, and Sean Scullion: it should be noted, for the record, that you all suck. Royally.
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 17, 2007 07:12 AM
I’m also curious as to whether the death penalty could be considered murder or not, whether you can distinguish between murdering somebody and executing somebody.
No, the death penalty cannot be considered murder, and yes you can distinguish between the two.
The Microsoft Encarta North American English Dictionary defines “murder” in the noun form as “the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law.” The death penalty is, by definition, a form of killing sanctioned by law and is thus not a form of murder.
Before anyone misunderstands: I am opposed to the death penalty. But words have meaning, and we should pay attention to those meanings in order to ensure meaningful communication.
As far as Rob’s question applies to the commandment not to murder, I don’t think the Microsoft dictionary can settle it.
The more relevant issue seems to be whether states and nations are subject to the commandments of God. Can a nation turn around and say “hold the plague — we made a law,” or whatever, and remove itself from the responsibility God imposes on individuals?
I’m gonna do something shocking — SHOCKING, I say! — and go back to the original thread topic.
Posted by: Jay Tea at May 15, 2007 12:14 PM
Looks like the signmaker ran out of room for the full message:
“WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE BUSH A BLØWJØB AND THEN GET HIM TO LIE UNDER OATH ABOUT IT SO WE CAN IMPEACH HIM!”
Shoulda got a bigger piece of cardboard — or written smaller at the outset.
That’s really no less incomplete than the original sign.
President Clinton allegedly lied about his affair with Lewinsky (I believe he continues to maintain that his statements were “legally accurate”) during a deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright later ruled that the issue of whether Clinton had such an affair was immaterial to the suit, however, which she subsequently dismissed because based on the “worst possible reading” of the facts, Ms. Jones simply had no case.
Admittedly, Judge Wright later ruled that Clinton was in contempt of court. But nevertheless, any lies he may have told pertaining to his affair with Lewinsky were immaterial to the Jones suit, and therefore those lies in no way denied Jones her right to have her case heard fairly by the courts.
That would definitely be too much to fit on a sign, though.
I’m gonna do something shocking — SHOCKING, I say! — and instead of letting Mikey impose his meaning on Rob Brown’s words, I’m going to ask Rob what he meant.
Rob, when you were asking about the distinction between “murder” and “the death penalty,” were you using “murder” in the context of the Sixth Commandment, or were you using the modern definition of “murder?” Or did you mean something else entirely?
By the way, I hope you don’t feel I’m trying to bait you. Quite the opposite. These are your words we’re discussing, and I’d rather ask you about your intended meaning rather than to let Mike try to “hijack” them on you.
“Rob, when you were asking about the distinction between “murder” and “the death penalty,” were you using “murder” in the context of the Sixth Commandment, or were you using the modern definition of “murder?” Or did you mean something else entirely?”
Does it really matter? Like the US today, the people who wrote the commandments did use capital punishment as part of their judicial system — and it is prescribed in the bible for certain crime — so it would seem they distinguished between murder and execution. (Although I’ve heard that Jewish law at a later time set such restrictions on capital punishment as to make it impossible, but they still had the distinction).
In any case, the question of wheather capital punishment constitutes murder is more of a political question than a linguistic one. Those who oppose it say that there isn’t much of a difference, those who support it say there is. This is not something that can be resolved by going to the dictionary, since the dictionary reflects the politics involved.
Those who oppose it say that there isn’t much of a difference, those who support it say there is.
Just to be clear, I both oppose it and recognize that there are clear differences between the death penalty and murder.
Micha, I had been wondering about how “murder” was defined in Biblical times but hadn’t the knowledge to discuss it. Thank you for providing some clarity.
I do disagree with you about the importance of the linguistic issue, though. One of the problems with political discussion is the abuse of language. Whether deliberate or not, it clouds the issues and makes meaningful communication and productive outcomes more difficult, if not impossible.
It may sound nitpicky of me to keep carping on the dictionary definition of “murder.” But whenever we start using words any which way, without respect to their actual meanings, I believe communication breaks down and progress soon follows.
If this annoys anyone or seems to nitpicky, I’m sorry. But I truly believe using words with imprecision is a bad thing. I’m not saying I’m never guilty of it — because I sometimes am. But I do feel it’s worth discussing.
Sweet Moses, talk about imprecise use of words!
When I wrote “…progress soon follows,” what I meant was “…the breakdown of progress soon follows.”
Wow. It’s hard to believe I once was a paid professional writer.
I think Bill Myers is correct about this one. When the Sixth Commandment was first written, the words used probably had a specific meaning which was known to the priests, or scribes or whoever read and copied the words. Because war was frequent, and the texts claim God ordered both warfare and capital punishment, it seems very probable that the words were not understood as forbidding anything God had instructed. There is a pesky strain of belief that God is not evil which runs through all of the Abrahamic religions.
Let me rephrase:
Among the opponents of capital punishment there are those who say that capital punishment is murder. Similarly, among vegetrians there are those who argue that eating meat is murder.
In both cases what we have is a moral/political statement mascarading as a linguistic statement.
I don’t see much use in replying with a dictionary definition of murder because it doesn’t really touch on the moral/political issue that is hiding behind the above statements. Instead you get a pointless discussion about language (imagine that).
In this situation the opponents of capital punishment who use this argument are acting diingenuously when they pretend that it is a linguistic issue. However, answering with a dictionary definition seems to me also disingenuous, since the distinction in our dictionaries between murder and capital punishment is reflective of the morals of the society we live in. A society opponents of capital punishment seek to change, sometimes using moral arguments that mascarade as linguistic arguments.
The issue of the exact language of the 6th commandment is relevant only if you’re a historian, a theologist, or believe itt is the word of god.
“When the Sixth Commandment was first written, the words used probably had a specific meaning which was known to the priests, or scribes or whoever read and copied the words. Because war was frequent, and the texts claim God ordered both warfare and capital punishment, it seems very probable that the words were not understood as forbidding anything God had instructed.”
Jeffrey, I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say here. The language of the hebrew bible is difficult sometimes, but it was not a secret language (to the best of my knowledge) but a spoken language. So there was no needd for priests in thast regard. It is true that since the bible was written countless interpreters have spent lifetimes trying to figure out and expand on every word and sentence.
I looked in a Hebrew dictionary, and it does not seem that he word ‘murder’ was used often in the hebrew bible. It seems to be used mostly for premeditated killing. It is no used to refer to the killing of Abel by Cain.
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 01:21 PM
Instead you get a pointless discussion about language (imagine that).
I didn’t think it was “pointless.” I thought it was a useful distinction to make.
This particular digression began with a remark about one poster’s perception of hypocrisy in Christians who accept capital punishment, despite the Sixth Commandment’s supposed prohibition against all killing. It evolved into a larger discussion of the distinctions we as a society draw today between killing in general and murder in particular. I thought the dictionary definition of the word would be helpful in clarifying that distinction. It wasn’t my intention to send us down any rabbit hole.
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 01:21 PM
However, answering with a dictionary definition seems to me also disingenuous, since the distinction in our dictionaries between murder and capital punishment is reflective of the morals of the society we live in.
“Disingenuous?” Micha, I’m sorry you saw no value in my post, but I assure you my intent was sincere.
Bill, I apologize. It was not my intention to attack you or accuse you of anything, or to say that what you say it without worth. I’m really not making myself clear today, and being also offensive. I’ll try to focus and explain myself again.
1) “perception of hypocrisy in Christians who accept capital punishment, despite the Sixth Commandment’s supposed prohibition against all killing.”
The simple answer is, like I said, that the Old testament and the commandment itself distinguishes between murder and capital punishment. And the societies in which these texts were written did in fact use capital punishment So, people who want to base their decision on capital punishment on the commandments and the Old Testament can certainly do so. I know less of the New Testament, but I suspect it is also true here, despite certain famous lines about vengence and turning the other cheek.
However, I must also say respectfully, without wanting to offend anyone, and without criticizing any person but just a form of argument, that I don’t think it is an argument you should make in the discussion about capital punishment, especially if you’re not yourself following the authority of scripture.
First, because, if you are not a believer, you will probably reject the authority of scripture if it turns out that it not only supports, but recommends the use of capital punishment.
Secondly, because it feels wrong to me to argue about a theology I don’t believe with with believers. In a strange way it seems to me to show disrespect toward the religion (and its official interpreters) while at the same time showing it too much respect. If I present an argument against capital punishment, I prefer it to come from my moral system.
Thirdly, if 2000 years of interpretation of the sacred texts has taught as anything, it’s that the bible is very flexible, and it is open for many possible interpretations. There’s a Hebrew expression: ‘the Torah has 70 faces’. So, the interpretation people pick, whether it is about capital punishment or homosexuality or anything else is usually a reflection of their attitudes in the present. This is true of the most fundemntalist christians (or Jews) as well as the more modern minded. So it seems to me that the discussion should be kept in the present (but with respect to the religiosity of the sides of the argument), and that interpretation will adapt if and when moral attitudes in society change.
2) “It evolved into a larger discussion of the distinctions we as a society draw today between killing in general and murder in particular. I thought the dictionary definition of the word would be helpful in clarifying that distinction.”
In that case Bill was right and I was wrong. The distinction that exists in our society between capital punishment and murder, as manifest in the dictionary definition, is important to the discussion. I overreacted, because it seems to me that in so many political arguments, and arguments in general, the discussion is shifted into semantics and language games instead of the real issues and meanings behind the words. This sometimes is done by people who are being disingenuous, or by people who get caught up in their own rhetoric, and at other times by people acting sincerely but nevertheless diverting the discussion in a direction I personaly don’t consider productive. In your case Bill, I don’t suspect you of being disingenuous, and I was also wrong to say that it was pointless.
That said, the dictionary can only articulate for us the moral distinction that exists in our society today (and has existed in the past) between murder and capital punishment — a distinction some would like to see eliminated. Moreover, I do feel it is necessary to realize that the dictionary definition is only a reflection of a moral, not linguistic, distinction that is the substance of our discussion. The real discussion, on the moral questions behind the words is still before us.
So, I hope this time I’ve made myself clearer without being offensive. If not, I apologize before hand. I’m a little unfocused today.
On an unrelated note, my sister is visiting from Berkeley tomorrow.
Checking in with someone over his own words is fine, but there isn’t anything wrong with me for inferring Rob’s meaning — considering he was responding to your own post referring to the commandment not to murder.
Your accusation was indulgent. Who’s supposed to tolerate an arbitrary accusation?
“The Microsoft Encarta North American English Dictionary defines “murder”…”
I wonder if that might be part of the problem. No matter the actual, official, dictionary definition of a word, sometimes in the vernacular the meaning can be inclusive of much, much more. Case in point, those that consider abortion murder. Those that do squeeze more out of that definition so that it fits their own personal perception. Hence so many things anymore being stated and overstated in such verbose legalese that most people get lost trying to take it as a whole. Could be that some people hope for that anyway. Also, I can’t help but wonder if there’s a certain limitation to this form of conversation, in that when some people read something they expect a much more formal use of speech than in normal, verbal conversation.
Or, I could just overthinking again. The smoke alarms ARE going off…wonder if that means something?
Posted by: Bill Myers at May 19, 2007 10:46 AM
Jerry Chandler, Bill Mulligan, and Sean Scullion: it should be noted, for the record, that you all suck. Royally.
I call dibs on Kurt’s old music as my official blog theme. He ain’t doing it any good these days.
Consider people who have never experienced sight. They live in a completely sequential world, where the objects in their living room simply do not exist until they encounter them. For those who are then given sight, they are moved to a non-sequential world, where they not only see the objects in their rooms that still don’t exist to them as they previously understood existence, but the traffic outside their windows, as well as the mountains miles away, and the airplanes in the sky that prompt the subject to reach out to touch them. I’ve heard of more than one occasion of such a patient asking to be blinded again.
So language is a sequencial codification of our non-sequential experiences, and isn’t all things to anyone. The Tao Te Ching opens saying the way that can be spoken is not the true way — before it goes on for 81 chapters, because representational narrative is only one game in town.
Without imposing my own opinion on abortion, I think that the equation of abortion with murder depends much more on one’s personal definition of “person” than that of “deliberately and not in self defense.” That it is deliberate should be unquestionable. More frequently than not, it is not in self defense. Because of that, the real question is whether what is being destroyed is human life. Any answer to that comes from personal definition of human life, rather than linguistics. The question of whether the proper translation of the original Hebrew should be “kill,” “murder” or something in between (“wrongly kill?” That seems too self-referential – “Don’t do what you really hadn’t ought to”) is an excellent one, but the abortion debate cannot be settled with this question. There are quite enough other homicides, or other-things-icides, as the case may be, to which the Sixth Commandment conundrum can be applied.
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 05:28 PM
I’m really not making myself clear today, and being also offensive.
Don’t blame yourself. Yesterday was the nadir of a really bad week, and my negative emotions were coloring my perceptions of everything. I think it was less a case of you being offensive and far more one of me being hyper-sensitive. I’m the one who should apologize. So: I’m sorry.
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 05:28 PM
However, I must also say respectfully, without wanting to offend anyone, and without criticizing any person but just a form of argument, that I don’t think it is an argument you should make in the discussion about capital punishment, especially if you’re not yourself following the authority of scripture.
Point taken. I was a devout Catholic until the age of 16, at which time I abandoned religion and have never found any compelling reason to return to it. While I reject many Christian precepts, however, I nevertheless believe it is unfair to attempt to put Christians in a rhetorical box with respect to the death penalty. That’s why I cited the two different English translations of the Sixth Amendment — “Thou Shalt Not Kill” vs. “Thou Shalt Not Murder” — and pointed out that the latter seems to make more sense when you look at other Biblical passages related to killing.
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 05:28 PM
Secondly, because it feels wrong to me to argue about a theology I don’t believe with with believers. In a strange way it seems to me to show disrespect toward the religion (and its official interpreters) while at the same time showing it too much respect.
Yes and no. I know enough about Christianity to know that the issue of how the Bible treats killing is not cut-and-dried. While I disagree with Christians in many ways (for instance, I don’t believe that acknowledging Christ as my personal savior is a requisite for salvation, which is by definition the foundation of all forms of Christianity), I don’t think it is fair to attempt to back them into a rhetorical corner. Knowing what I know, I felt I should speak up.
(By the way, Rob Brown, I don’t believe it was your intent to box anyone in. Your statement was honest, but simply didn’t take into account certain facts. I don’t want you to feel like I’m pounding on you again. I’ve already done too much of that and regret the hëll out of it. Not that it excuses anything, but I was having an awful week and unfortunately you caught some of the brunt of it.)
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 05:28 PM
Thirdly, if 2000 years of interpretation of the sacred texts has taught as anything, it’s that the bible is very flexible, and it is open for many possible interpretations.
Agreed. That, again, is why I stepped up and offered what knowledge I have. While I disagree with Christianity, and take offense at the attitudes of some Christians (not all, not even the majority, but some), it is not necessarily hypocritical for a Christian to support the death penalty.
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 05:28 PM
In that case Bill was right and I was wrong.
As I said in an earlier post, this ain’t a court of law or a debate team. I don’t see any reason to look for a clear “right” or “wrong” outcome to our current digression about linguistics vs. morality. Frankly, I think you made some very good points. Words have both denotative meaning (i.e. the “dictionary meaning”) and connotative meaning (i.e. the meaning individuals invest in them). It may well have been “disingenuous” of me to omit that from the discussion. 😉
Posted by: Micha at May 19, 2007 05:28 PM
The distinction that exists in our society between capital punishment and murder, as manifest in the dictionary definition, is important to the discussion.
Perhaps. I probably could have expressed my thoughts with more clarity and precision, though. I think the linguistic distinction between capital punishment and murder exists because of the substantive difference between a thug killing someone in a drive-by shooting, and the state executing someone after a lengthy judicial process. I personally believe both acts are wrong, but conflating them does nothing to advance the discussion.
Nevertheless, you were asking me not to fixate on minutae. Don’t apologize for that. You were helping keep the discussion on a productive track. I tend to drown in the details sometimes.
I think there’s been a lot of tension here of late, in part due to a recent uptick in trolling activity. Oh, and due in part also to some jáçkášš named Bill Myers bringing a bad mood to this board. I think you and I can both draw a deep breath and relax, Micha. As per usual, your thoughts have served to help me shape mine. So keep doing what you’re doing, and don’t worry about being “offensive.” You’re one of the most inoffensive people here. 🙂