EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:18 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Just as an aside on the subject of definitions and misrepresentations, there is no implied fault with calling something a misrepresentation as opposed to calling something a lie.

I prefer to use misrepresentation in the case of an incorrect statement for just this reason, regardless of the popular implication. The same for the usage of ignorant. It is not an attack but a statement of some lack of knowledge.

Mis·rep·re·sen·ta·tion
n.
Untrue representation; false or incorrect statement or account; -- usually unfavorable to the thing represented; as, a misrepresentation of a person's motives. Sydney Smith.

Note: In popular use, this word often conveys the idea of intentional untruth.




lie2 (lî)
n.

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.


In the case of the use of the term manslaughter, it was not correct as it implies a level of fault that was not present. None knew at the time whether it was an intentional usage by anyone or a repeated usage with the assumption of fact. Both cases are fairly common in discussions such as this, so there will be a need to point out what appears to be a misrepresentation for further clarification so that the correct situation may be determined. I assume not being familiar with the legal terms nor even the possible differences in the terms between the US and UK (not even considering OZ yet) could account for such a misunderstanding. Werefox seems to have given a plausible explanation to the misunderstanding and I for one look forward to continuing the discussion on the issue on a rational manner.



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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:03 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:16 am
Posts: 1389
Location: Australia
RF wrote:
Wow. Certainly been a bunch happened in a short time. I might take the valid points to be drawn from this up at another board, since the admin here has indicated a desire to purge the incidents from the history books.


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)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:50 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:16 am
Posts: 1389
Location: Australia
Werefox wrote:

Quote:
"Thank you Sandra for your posting, it was a pleasure to read it and I do appreciate all that you have to say.


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

Quote:
Although perhaps now everyone is tired of my mentioning this, right from the outset I did use the word 'manslaughter' referring to the deaths of the two hunt saboteurs. I thought that this particular word would suffice as the meaning therein is to 'unintentionally kill'.


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.

Quote:
I did not have a dictionary or thesaurus at hand and as you yourself say, debate becomes impossible if an individual cannot mention an event or point without immediately being challenged to prove it to the satisfaction of a court of law. I thank you for your comments here.


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

Quote:
As an aside I note the lines from the Auguries of Innocence by William Blake. He is perhaps my favorite poet, and I have a rubbing from his grave on my living room wall. Have you been to his former home in Soho in London?


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? :)

Quote:
Sadly as you no doubt know he died in poverty, it was only decades after his death that his genius was recognised. But his words of beauty are known the world over now, and it is a pleasure to become acquainted with a fellow Blakean.


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 :lol: ) is definitely not the way to make money. :(

Quote:
Each outcry from the hunted hare,
A fibre from the brain doth tear.


William Blake, Auguries of Innocence.

:)

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

Quote:
As said it has been a pleasure to speak to you. My very best wishes, and I do hope that we can speak again soon.


I am looking forward to it Werefox. A bientot.

Donnie MacLeod

Quote:
Here is a link for you to follow for dictionary uses Werefox.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm Will help save you looking for words and how to explain the not so suttle differences between Killed, Murdered, Manslaughter and accidental or dead by mistake caused by victim.


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)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 5:21 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:16 am
Posts: 1389
Location: Australia
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Quote:
I prefer to use misrepresentation in the case of an incorrect statement ..., regardless of the popular implication. The same for the usage of ignorant. It is not an attack but a statement of some lack of knowledge.


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.

Quote:
In the case of the use of the term manslaughter, it was not correct as it implies a level of fault that was not present.


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".

:lol: 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)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 5:47 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:16 am
Posts: 1389
Location: Australia
Quote:
A word of advice to all posters,....


Quote:
Just remember the golden rule of forums, post unto others as you would have them post unto you ...


:lol: 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).

Quote:
if you feel that there are too many questions/statements to follow ... just say so. .... Of course if anyone expects to receive some breathing space after such a statement they must also be willing to give that space.


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)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:38 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Sandra John wrote:
Quote:
Although perhaps now everyone is tired of my mentioning this, right from the outset I did use the word 'manslaughter' referring to the deaths of the two hunt saboteurs. I thought that this particular word would suffice as the meaning therein is to 'unintentionally kill'.


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.


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.

Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
Quote:
I did not have a dictionary or thesaurus at hand and as you yourself say, debate becomes impossible if an individual cannot mention an event or point without immediately being challenged to prove it to the satisfaction of a court of law. I thank you for your comments here.


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


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. :wink:


Quote:
Donnie MacLeod

Quote:
Here is a link for you to follow for dictionary uses Werefox.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm Will help save you looking for words and how to explain the not so suttle differences between Killed, Murdered, Manslaughter and accidental or dead by mistake caused by victim.


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).


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:48 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
Donnie MacLeod

Quote:

Here is a link for you to follow for dictionary uses Werefox.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm Will help save you looking for words and how to explain the not so suttle differences between Killed, Murdered, Manslaughter and accidental or dead by mistake caused by victim.




Sandra

Quote:
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).




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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:07 am 
Sandra John wrote:
RF wrote:
Wow. Certainly been a bunch happened in a short time. I might take the valid points to be drawn from this up at another board, since the admin here has indicated a desire to purge the incidents from the history books.


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


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.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:12 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:16 am
Posts: 1389
Location: Australia
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
Donnie MacLeod

Quote:

Here is a link for you to follow for dictionary uses Werefox.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm Will help save you looking for words and how to explain the not so suttle differences between Killed, Murdered, Manslaughter and accidental or dead by mistake caused by victim.


Sandra

Quote:
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).


Quote:
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.


If I showed less contempt for posters? That's rich. :roll: 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)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:36 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
Sandra John wrote:
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
Donnie MacLeod

Quote:

Here is a link for you to follow for dictionary uses Werefox.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm Will help save you looking for words and how to explain the not so suttle differences between Killed, Murdered, Manslaughter and accidental or dead by mistake caused by victim.


Sandra

Quote:
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).


Quote:
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.


If I showed less contempt for posters? That's rich. :roll: 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.



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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:36 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:16 am
Posts: 1389
Location: Australia
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Quote:
Although perhaps now everyone is tired of my mentioning this, right from the outset I did use the word 'manslaughter' referring to the deaths of the two hunt saboteurs. I thought that this particular word would suffice as the meaning therein is to 'unintentionally kill'.


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.

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
"Murder" is illegally killing someone with malice and "manslaughter" is without malice.


That's what I just said.

Quote:
Main Entry: man·slaugh·ter

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


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

Quote:
I did not have a dictionary or thesaurus at hand and as you yourself say, debate becomes impossible if an individual cannot mention an event or point without immediately being challenged to prove it to the satisfaction of a court of law. I thank you for your comments here.


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


Quote:
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. :wink:


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.

Quote:
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.


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?

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


Certainly that's fine with me.

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

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:36 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 11:53 am
Posts: 2281
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
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. :roll:

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 :shock: then perhaps I could create a general discussion area.

-josh


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:10 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
josh knauer wrote:
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. :roll:

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 :shock: 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..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:48 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:47 pm
Posts: 91
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:11 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
sama wrote:
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. :wink:

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group