www.ditl.org

Deepcrush wrote:I think you just missed the whole moral of the point. Not that I'm shocked that you did, but still.

Do you always have this much trouble with context?

What context? As Thorin says, your definition would make a meaningless accident muder, and a purposeful murder not. That's one of the most insane definitions I've ever heard.

Ah, well thats why its a MORAL statement. Law has already been covered.

Wait, when did all of this come back up?
I thought we were trying to figure out how to put bad-ass weapons on starships?

Deepcrush wrote:Ah, well thats why its a MORAL statement. Law has already been covered.

Wait, when did all of this come back up?
I thought we were trying to figure out how to put bad-ass weapons on starships?

Just showing your idiocy after you repeatedly, when not even a part of this, and clearly not understanding what either myself or anyone else is talking about, insult and constantly make attempts at patronising myself.
Law had not been covered at that point, and as much as your attempting to back yourself out now, both in that thread and just now you have repeatedly attempted to affirm your own belief that murder is a 'meaningless killing'. Morally or by law, that is categorically wrong. And by continually trying to repeat yourself are attempting to convince yourself you're right, when you know you're not.

Someone needs to get this kid back to primary school.

I was talking about past threads. Good going.

And by continually trying to repeat yourself are attempting to convince yourself you're right, when you know you're not.

Yeah, umm, ok. Isn't this what you just got yelled at a page or two ago for?

Deepcrush wrote:Ah, well thats why its a MORAL statement. Law has already been covered.

Wait, when did all of this come back up?
I thought we were trying to figure out how to put bad-ass weapons on starships?

So its moral to kill someone so long as its meaningful? Tosser.
Keep digging yourself deeper - you should reach Australia soon.

Deepcrush wrote: Yeah, umm, ok. Isn't this what you just got yelled at a page or two ago for?

Only you did the yelling - you're unable to debate in a proper manner. That was about which was the simplest, not convincing myself I'm right. You, on the other hand, are. When your utterly wrong. The fact you insult people and continually patronise just shows what you're really like, and precisely why I can't stand talking to you at all. That and the fact you don't know how to use the word 'kid' et al.

First, I'm sure you meant it as an insult but I don't care for three reasons.
One, my statement hasn't changed so I'm right where I started, no matter your understanding or not.
Two, I have no clue what a "Tosser" is.
Three, I'm still in shock that an american has a MORAL idea that the british don't understand. Its just weird to me, I had always thought you guys high and mighty on this kind of stuff. It would be like Bush saying something smart or an angry pot head. You know what I'm talking about, those really strange things in life that you never think will happen.

Deepcrush wrote:First, I'm sure you meant it as an insult but I don't care for three reasons.

If I attempted to use wit or sarcasm you wouldn't understand, with you I've got to go to more blunt methods.

One, my statement hasn't changed so I'm right where I started, no matter your understanding or not.

Oh yes, we all know that. The fact you still don't understand you're wrong.

Two, I have no clue what a "Tosser" is.

Jerk is probably the closest to describe it (and you).

Three, I'm still in shock that an american has a MORAL idea that the british don't understand. Its just weird to me, I had always thought you guys high and mighty on this kind of stuff. It would be like Bush saying something smart or an angry pot head. You know what I'm talking about, those really strange things in life that you never think will happen.

Hahahaha, no, the point is, we don't know what you're talking about. Because you're spouting rubish. Your moral idea is that all murder is a meaningless killing. Like Seafort said, by that definition, if you killed someone for a meaning (such as to get their inheritance), it's not murder. Laughable. But that's your morals.

Thorin wrote:

Deepcrush wrote: Yeah, umm, ok. Isn't this what you just got yelled at a page or two ago for?

Only you did the yelling - you're unable to debate in a proper manner. That was about which was the simplest, not convincing myself I'm right. You, on the other hand, are. When your utterly wrong. The fact you insult people and continually patronise just shows what you're really like, and precisely why I can't stand talking to you at all. That and the fact you don't know how to use the word 'kid' et al.

Ok, true enough I do patronise people a little (way more then a little) but its a joke, deal with it. Plus I think you meant "at all". As to the kid comment. You act so and thus called so. Or, maybe again depending on the topic or whats being said it could a joke. Plus in rare times it could be both. I don't remember yelling. I think it was more of a highlighting at the time. Sorry if it was confusing. Plus I was referring to Thorin and Mikey trade off.

I also don't see why a killing without a moral meaning wouldn't be counted as murder. Is that just some strange law you guys have over there? Killing for money violates moral meaning (atleast here it does) so the whole you killing your thing just doesn't work.

Thorin wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:First, I'm sure you meant it as an insult but I don't care for three reasons.

If I attempted to use wit or sarcasm you wouldn't understand, with you I've got to go to more blunt methods.

One, my statement hasn't changed so I'm right where I started, no matter your understanding or not.

Oh yes, we all know that. The fact you still don't understand you're wrong.

Two, I have no clue what a "Tosser" is.

Jerk is probably the closest to describe it (and you).

Three, I'm still in shock that an american has a MORAL idea that the british don't understand. Its just weird to me, I had always thought you guys high and mighty on this kind of stuff. It would be like Bush saying something smart or an angry pot head. You know what I'm talking about, those really strange things in life that you never think will happen.

Hahahaha, no, the point is, we don't know what you're talking about. Because you're spouting rubish. Your moral idea is that all murder is a meaningless killing. Like Seafort said, by that definition, if you killed someone for a meaning (such as to get their inheritance), it's not murder. Laughable. But that's your morals.

All that you had to say was "It means jerk". The whole relax thing remember. Inhale, exhale, repeat.

Deepcrush wrote:I also don't see why a killing without a moral meaning wouldn't be counted as murder. Is that just some strange law you guys have over there? Killing for money violates moral meaning (atleast here it does) so the whole you killing your thing just doesn't work.

Killing for money may violate "moral meaning", but it is done for a purpose and therefore cannot be described as "meaningless". If you want to backpeddal then you might as well accept that you've been talking out of your arse the whole time and conceed mine and Thorin's point.

Deepcrush wrote:[
Ok, true enough I do patronise people a little (way more then a little) but its a joke, deal with it. Plus I think you meant "at all".

Trying to embarass yourself again? I meant to say 'et al', it's a latin phrase meaning 'and others'. No surprise you don't know it.

As to the kid comment. You act so and thus called so. Or, maybe again depending on the topic or whats being said it could a joke.

I'm never the first one to throw out insults - you are. Always. The fact you can't even contain yourself and always feel the need to insult really does say a lot about your character.

I also don't see why a killing without a moral meaning wouldn't be counted as murder.

Yes, we realised that you don't see it.
Also a nice slide of 'moral meaning' into it, where meaning can only be that of good. You said just meaningful, and that can be a bad thing. Such as killing someone to get their inheritance. If it's an accident, where someone dies due to someone else, it's a killing without meaning. But it's an accident, so it sure as hell isn't murder.
If we're not doing a good enough job of explaining why you're wrong in text, you might want to ask a primary school teacher to elaborate.

Backpeddal what? I wonder if we are even talking about the same thing. Why is it that you two keep removing MORAL from what I am saying? Do you truly like to cry over something that much? Its like talking to a woman during PMS. The whole selective hearing and what not.

Thorin wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:[
Ok, true enough I do patronise people a little (way more then a little) but its a joke, deal with it. Plus I think you meant "at all".

Trying to embarass yourself again? I meant to say 'et al', it's a latin phrase meaning 'and others'. No surprise you don't know it.

As to the kid comment. You act so and thus called so. Or, maybe again depending on the topic or whats being said it could a joke.

I'm never the first one to throw out insults - you are. Always. The fact you can't even contain yourself and always feel the need to insult really does say a lot about your character.

I also don't see why a killing without a moral meaning wouldn't be counted as murder.

Yes, we realised that you don't see it.
Also a nice slide of 'moral meaning' into it, where meaning can only be that of good. You said just meaningful, and that can be a bad thing. Such as killing someone to get their inheritance. If it's an accident, where someone dies due to someone else, it's a killing without meaning. But it's an accident, so it sure as hell isn't murder.
If we're not doing a good enough job of explaining why you're wrong in text, you might want to ask a primary school teacher to elaborate.

You must really love hearing yourself talk.

How is it going to embarass me that I don't speak a language that no one around me speaks? Also a language that I have no need for. As to my character, that would take a whole thread on its own! HAHAHAHA!

It's utterly irrelevent whether you're talking about a legal or moral definition of murder - to define it solely on on the grounds of whether a killing has meaning is stupid.