EnviroLink Forum

And as you can see in the thread werefox and I are debating in I only offer the dictionary link so they can get the words correct as werefox was trying to define the deaths as murder and manslaughter. No big deal but the court did not class either death as murder or manslaughters.

What's the problem now? I thought you'd have been pleased to see *** banned.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Werefox wrote:



Thank you Werefox always a joy to meet a kindred spirit.



Well, strictly speaking the term, "manslaughter", just means, "humankilling", it does not carry any implication as to intention but leaves the matter open. So, strictly speaking,your usage is quite correct.

The challenge to your usage could only have been based on Posters' assumption of the legal meaning of this word viz: culpable/criminal human killing, without malice aforethought. Obviously, "manslaughter", so defined is very close to, "murder", viz: culpable/criminal human killing withmalice aforethought and, IMO, it is probably this sense of the word that is uppermost in the minds of most people. Many may not even realize that it is, in fact, a special legal usage.



My pleasure I assure you. IMO we see far too many, "prove its", and far to few, 'please explains", on this Board.



I have not Werefox but would love to see it. I think Blake is a beeeeeeeutiful sympatico Poet and (as I imagine you know better than I do) a leading human/animal liberationist in his day. We do have some common ground don't we?



Words of beauty indeed! and power. It is sad that those who devote their lives to the cause of truth, love and beauty should see so little personal compensation for their efforts. Being ahead of one's time (or out of sympathy with the mainstream thinking of one's times as the case may be ) is definitely not the way to make money.



William Blake, Auguries of Innocence.



A Skylark wounded in the wing,
A Cherubim doth cease to sing.



I am looking forward to it Werefox. A bientot.

Donnie MacLeod



Is this you courteously asking for clarification of a term Donnie? If so, you may wish to see above the difference between, "manslaughter", (common use) and, "manslaughter", (legal use).

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Wayne Stollings wrote:



As you say, a misrepresentation is simply an untrue, false or incorrect statement, usually unfavourable to the thing represented: there is no implication of intention which is left open.

However, because it is associated with discrediting the thing represented, it has become associated with an intentionto discredit and, in rebuttal of that, with an intentional lie.

That being so I find it difficult to understand how you can expect to use, "misrepresentation", without explanation and not be misunderstood to be implying deceit. It is only a connotation of the word but connotations account for at least a half of the meaning of any word.

The use of, "ignorant", has similar problems. One might expect, "you are ignorant of X", to pass without too much reaction; as simply meaning, "you lack knowledge of X". However, I think it will generally be considered discourteous, will give rise to resistance to the point ostensibly being made and, in a polarized context such as this Forum, will almost certainly be considered an attack.

In any case it is just as likely to be false as true. The person may not at all be ignorant of X. S/he may only be partly ignorant of X, or may just not be taking X into account or not giving X much consequence in the argument. It is rarely a statement that the speaker can fully justify.



It cannot properly be concluded that Werefox's usage was, "not correct", because, as you yourself say, no-one at the time of the dispute had any real idea what Werefox's usage was.

Werefox might have been relying on the common use of, "manslaughter", according to which it just means, "humankilling", and has no connotations of intention or fault.

Werefox might have been relying on the legal use of, "manslaughter", according to which it means, "culpable/criminal human killing without malice aforethought" which does have connotations of intention and fault.

As it turns out, however, Werefox was not relying on either usage but was drawing in some degree on both with an intention of referring to, "unintentional killing".

Never saw a better argument for dropping, "that's a misrepresentation / prove it", and taking up, "would you please explain your meaning".

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Or, in case of a default from the other side,, one could also ask the Oz, "top of the pops", question, "Whazamatta you, you gotta no respeck"? (courtesy of our Italian immigrant comedians).



Any ideas as to what a breathing space might mean in practice Wayne (or anyone)? I mean, do we ask everyone to not post on the topic for a day or two to give someone time to reply or, supposing six people take issue with some statement would it make sense to open a new thread to resolve that issue and allow the discussion to continue in the original thread. Does that make sense in practical terms?

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

No, it technically was not. The hunters involved did not kill anyone. The sabs were killed by their own misadventure not by by anyone else.



The definition of the word is only tied to the legal usage, just as the misused term "murder" is only tied to the legal usage involving humans. "Murder" is illegally killing someone with malice and "manslaughter" is without malice.

Main Entry: man·slaugh·ter
Pronunciation: 'man-"slo-t&r
Function: noun
: the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice



I agree but we also see far too many improper usages of words that cannot be explained in any other way than the usage was wrong. Too many redefinitions of words will help create such an atmosphere too.




Actually you may want to check out the dictionary Donnie provided as a link. There is but ONE use of the term, which is tied to the legal definition.

Might I suggest the discussion go to the Animal Concerns forum instead of here in the Feedback?

I cannot split it but maybe Josh will do so for us.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Donnie MacLeod





Sandra





You know something Sandra. This forum would run without less strife if you as a mod showed less contempt for posters.. My point was to give Werefox the link so they could understand what the terms mean by legal & dictionary definition not by your ill conceived pontification.

At the point he spammed the board with porn images, I think the proper decision was to ban him. But other than that...no, I would not have been pleased to see him banned. And I certainly disagree with this notion that he is now a non-person whose name cannot even be mentioned. That looks a little silly to me. But it's Josh's board and he can be silly if he wants. In fact, I even understand the intent behind that particular silliness, so I'm not going to dwell on it here, as I said.

If I showed less contempt for posters? That's rich. Have you any idea how patronizing your post above to Werefox is? BTW if you care to check your own dictionary link I'm sure you'll find the same pontificating distinction there as I have reviewed above.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Actually the poster Werefox made the point that they needed a dictionary. I provided them with an internet source. As for condescending approach". You miss why I made specific notice to your selective slams on posters Sandra. You create the strife and then whine about it.


How the hell would you equate manslaughter with the case I noted such as bumper jacking which was essentially how the sab victims died. The charge might be manslaughter but the charge fails since the death would be ruled accidental with no onus on the driver. Hell you could even call bumper jacking stupid to the point of suicidal. Your pontification and the ruling do not reflect what you stated Sandra and thus you add to the strife by being to committed to certain posters. In the initial threads on these accidental deaths the UK posters referred to them as murder victims. Think about that > Especially since they were killed by their own hand.

Wayne Stollings wrote:



Well, strictly speaking the term, "manslaughter", just means, "humankilling", it does not carry any implication as to intention but leaves the matter open. So, strictly speaking,your usage is not quite correct. [/quote]

NB I just added the, "not", that was left out of this sentence.



Seeing that Werefox was using the term, "manslaughter", to mean, "unintentional (accidental) killing", and assuming that s/he knew there was a verdict in the case of, "death by misadventure", I also assume that s/he meant to say that the huntsmen were somehow instrumental in the misadventure viz: somehow caused the accident.





The definition of a word is the definition of a word - what the word means it isn't tied to anything. "Man" = "human", and, "slaughter" = "killing", hence, "manslaughter" = "humankilling'. This is the literal meaning of the word - a matter of semantics. The legal meaning viz: "culpable/criminal/illegal human killing without malice aforethought", is the literal meaning together with certain legal associations.



That's what I just said.



There is not significant difference between this definition and the one I gave above.







I don't know how many re-definitions there were in this case. All I know is that Werefox explained above that his/her intention in using the word, "manslaughter", was to refer to unintentional (accidental) killing. I took him/her to be expressing the view (notwithstanding a verdict of death by misadventure) that the huntsmen in the case were in some way instrumental in the deaths of the two hunt sabateurs.



You mean to say this dictionary gives only the legal definition of the term and fails to give an account of the semantics? What would be the point of consulting such a dictionary?



Certainly that's fine with me.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

My goodness... I'm not sure how to take all of this feedback to envirolink from all of you. I'm sure that there is some reason that those that receive feedback at envirolink would care about manslaughter, but I just don't think I can imagine why.

Please get this discussion out of here and into whatever area it belongs in. If we really need a proper area for discussing things like the definition of manslaughter or why the word "laughter" is a root of the word then perhaps I could create a general discussion area.

-josh

I am in the process of starting a new topic thread which points to why the definitions used were questionable Josh. It will take some time but you can lock this one up if you wish as I will draw a connection to mis-representation of murder in the deaths of the youths at sab hunts..

ah. i have only just come across this thread, and apologise for intruding.

i have mentioned the phantom's name in another thread, because i thought he was still on this board, and what was being said had relevance for him. it was with regard to the use of the word coon, which is an unpleasant and racist word in the uk, although i accept that it is used ordinarily in the usa. sorry. i did, though, ask that it not be used, as i too find it very unpleasant. hope this doesnt offend anyone, and if it does, sorry again.

sama

No problem, I deleted the post for you, especially as it was a moot point now.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein