Do dictators commit murder against their own citizens?

[Mensch]

Mac and Cephus take the literal definition of murder to the extreme, arguing that dictators do not murder unless (as mac pointed out) convicted in an international court of justice.

What is your take? Should we be blinded by literalism and refrain from calling these men murderers, or is it necessary to denounce them as murderers for unjustly taking the lives of their own citizens?

 

[Wake]

Mac and Cephus take the literal definition of murder to the extreme, arguing that dictators do not murder unless (as mac pointed out) convicted in an international court of justice.

What is your take? Should we be blinded by literalism and refrain from calling these men murderers, or is it necessary to denounce them as murderers for unjustly taking the lives of their own citizens?

It depends if said dictators violated global treaties, etc.

Those treaties aside, any dictator could "legalize" murder and kill millions.

If it's not somehow murder, then we can't say Hitler was a murdering tyrant.

 

[StillBallin75]

Mac and Cephus take the literal definition of murder to the extreme, arguing that dictators do not murder unless (as mac pointed out) convicted in an international court of justice.

What is your take? Should we be blinded by literalism and refrain from calling these men murderers, or is it necessary to denounce them as murderers for unjustly taking the lives of their own citizens?

It does not take a conviction to be literally guilty of a crime. Such men are murderers as long as they have breached international law. Even in their own countries, I'm sure those same killings are often considered extralegal. Just because you haven't been convicted in a court doesn't mean you're not a murderer.

 

[MaggieD]

I may not be able to define it . . . may not be able to explain it . . . but I know a murderer when I "see" one. Being a murderer and being convicted of murder in a courtroom are two very different things.

 

[Goshin]

Until someone with the power to hold them accountable takes them into custody and calls them to answer for their actions.... THEN it can be murder, legally.


Most people use murder more haphazardly, but I think that "unjust and premeditated killing" is a reasonable benchmark.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

What is your take? Should we be blinded by literalism and refrain from calling these men murderers, or is it necessary to denounce them as murderers for unjustly taking the lives of their own citizens?

Now wait a second here.

If (and I'm saying IF) the term "murder" does not really apply, then why do you feel we ought to use it anyway? Why do you need to use language improperly in an emotional way to make your point? Why can't your point stand on its own?

What exactly is wrong with calling it "killing" if "murder" doesn't really apply? What sane person would say "Oh, it's just killing, no big?"

You do realize you are advocating for the misuse of language in order to hopefully manipulate emotional response, right?

I am not saying it is or isn't murder. I'm just pointing out the serious flaw in your line of reasoning here.

 

[JayDubya]

Strictly speaking? No, not if the law is defined such that the dictator actually CAN do what they are doing, or if the law is established such that the executive's will is absolute...

Murder is an illegal homicide. If the executive's actions are legal, they cannot be "murder."



People sometimes use the term more broadly, but I'd suggest that can be disruptive to a political / legal discussion when a more precise term exists, and then everything devolves to semantics.


This is an interesting point to make on multiple levels, for multiple other topics...

But broadly, I'll just say that without the notion of human rights that extend beyond what is issued by a nation state - if there's no good and evil, only legal and illegal - you really don't have much in the way of grounds to criticize such tyrants...

 

[Hatuey]

In the case of dictators, as far as court of opinion is concerned, they are murderers.

Are they convicted murderers? No.

It's playing rhetorical semantics though.

 

[jamesrage]

Mac and Cephus take the literal definition of murder to the extreme, arguing that dictators do not murder unless (as mac pointed out) convicted in an international court of justice.

What is your take? Should we be blinded by literalism and refrain from calling these men murderers, or is it necessary to denounce them as murderers for unjustly taking the lives of their own citizens?

Every abortionist will point out in an abortion debate that murder is a legal technicality and that is one of the reasons abortion is not murder.Just like it is not murder to shoot a burglar in your home, for the state to execute a criminal or for troops to kill enemy soldiers,terrorists and militants. A dictator runs his country and therefore makes laws for his country,so if he declared it legal to people over the age of 40, then it would not be murder in his country to kill people over the age of 40. Now if we invade that dictator's country,take over it and capture him then we can try him on genocide.

Murder | Define Murder at Dictionary.com
Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

 

[Hatuey]

Every abortionist will point out in an abortion debate that murder is a legal technicality and that is one of the reasons abortion is not murder.Just like it is not murder to shoot a burglar in your home, for the state to execute a criminal or for troops to kill enemy soldiers,terrorists and militants. A dictator runs his country and therefore makes laws for his country,so if he declared it legal to people over the age of 40, then it would not be murder in his country to kill people over the age of 40.

Murder | Define Murder at Dictionary.com
Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

Dictators aren't above international law :roll:. This is why we went into Iraq to begin with. To prove you couldn't get away with breaking international law? Remember?

USA! USA! USA! USA!

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Mac and Cephus take the literal definition of murder to the extreme, arguing that dictators do not murder unless (as mac pointed out) convicted in an international court of justice.

What is your take? Should we be blinded by literalism and refrain from calling these men murderers, or is it necessary to denounce them as murderers for unjustly taking the lives of their own citizens?

Technically, they aren't murderers because murder is the illegal killing and dictators are, essentially, the law.

 

[Mensch]

I just reread the definition. When used as a verb, it can be literally applied to dictators:

verb
4.
Law . to kill by an act constituting murder.
5.
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6.
to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.

I don't see why people are so hung up on the literal meaning of text. We don't take religious text literally, and how often are words used as descriptors when they don't literally apply?

For instance, would it be so inappropriate to call genocidal dictators monsters despite the fact the literal definition does not apply?

 

[Mensch]

Now wait a second here.

If (and I'm saying IF) the term "murder" does not really apply, then why do you feel we ought to use it anyway?

I don't demand that you use it. But in my previous debates with others, I used the term and was challenged for using it. Though I don't particularly care what term is used (so long as it is appropriate according to reason and decency), I do have a problem when I have to defend the use of the term in my own right.

Why do you need to use language improperly in an emotional way to make your point? Why can't your point stand on its own?

It's not exactly "improper." Words do not have be used literally for every circumstance. As I just previously posted, murder can be applied in this context when it is used as a verb. Also, many people call them monsters when the term is not literally correct. I wouldn't say that is an improper use of the word monster, just not a literal one.

What exactly is wrong with calling it "killing" if "murder" doesn't really apply? What sane person would say "Oh, it's just killing, no big?"

Because "killing," in my humble opinion, is not a sufficient descriptor. People often kill to eat or in self-defense. Just leaving it at "killing" doesn't properly describe the brutality of the act.

You do realize you are advocating for the misuse of language in order to hopefully manipulate emotional response, right?

I don't believe it is a misuse of language simply because you take every textual word literally. Manipulate emotional response? How is that, given that the historical act of genocide alone is enough to stir an emotional response?

I am not saying it is or isn't murder. I'm just pointing out the serious flaw in your line of reasoning here.

What flaw? That I don't adhere to a literal application of words in all instances, at all times?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Yes killing people that are protesting because they disagree with your views is murder. And i dont give a **** if they are convicted in court or not i call it as i see it.

 

[jamesrage]

Dictators aren't above international law :roll:.

Don't you have to sign a treaty for international law to apply? Why would a dictator sign something that doesn't benefit him?

 

[Mensch]

Don't you have to sign a treaty for international law to apply? Why would a dictator sign something that doesn't benefit him?

An excellent point. Several countries never signed nor ratified these international treaties, let alone subjugate their criminal justice system under the ICC. As well, it doesn't make sense that those who signed the treaties would hold reservations in order to create their own loopholes.

 

[Higgins86]

when I cut into my juicy steak tonight did I aid in the killing of the cow, yes....

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Bleh international law shouldn't even come into this.
International law, is hardly enforced making it, largely, null.

 

[AGENT J]

Mac and Cephus take the literal definition of murder to the extreme, arguing that dictators do not murder unless (as mac pointed out) convicted in an international court of justice.

What is your take? Should we be blinded by literalism and refrain from calling these men murderers, or is it necessary to denounce them as murderers for unjustly taking the lives of their own citizens?

if it breaks the laws of his country then yes.
Murder is a legal term so you can only be a murderer in the legal sense.

You can call him a lunatic killer though :shrug:

 

[Mensch]

when I cut into my juicy steak tonight did I aid in the killing of the cow, yes....

Of course, which is why the term "killing" is insufficient when describing the brutal acts of dictators.

 

[Mensch]

Bleh international law shouldn't even come into this.
International law, is hardly enforced making it, largely, null.

I agree, but I still think using the term murderer in a non-literal fashion to describe dictators is appropriate.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I agree, but I still think using the term murderer in a non-literal fashion to describe dictators is appropriate.

I mean, I wouldn't complain about the use of the term.
Although I think when used in a formal sense, murder would be incorrect.

 

[Mensch]

if it breaks the laws of his country then yes.
Murder is a legal term so you can only be a murderer in the legal sense.

You can call him a lunatic killer though :shrug:

That's not enough for me. Sanity is a far more subjective variable that I wish to stay away from, at least for the purposes of this thread.

You are using the term murderer only in an absolute sense. I feel certain terms, depending on context, could be used in a non-literal way to accurately describe the acts of another. Calling a dictator a murderer or a monster are two examples, given the fact they don't literally apply.

 

[Mensch]

I mean, I wouldn't complain about the use of the term.
Although I think when used in a formal sense, murder would be incorrect.

Interestingly enough, if it is used as a verb, it is literally correct but not as a noun. So, we could accurately say that Stalin murdered his own people but we could not accurately say that Stalin is a murderer (again, speaking literally)

 

[AGENT J]

That's not enough for me. Sanity is a far more subjective variable that I wish to stay away from, at least for the purposes of this thread.

You are using the term murderer only in an absolute sense. I feel certain terms, depending on context, could be used in a non-literal way to accurately describe the acts of another. Calling a dictator a murderer or a monster are two examples, given the fact they don't literally apply.

uhm factually monster does apply, murder without the legal backing does not

its not accurate because the definition of the word doesnt allow it to be :shrug:

if there is no legal backing at best it would be your unsupported opinion he is a murder or you could possible defend it as "slang" but you would have no factual back at all.