Get your very own Lenin statue for only $300! - Mongolian capital's historical statue for sale - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;38037217]Wait, I thought murder strictly applied to [I]illegal[/I] and spiteful killing. I don't think he would deem his own actions as illegal.[/QUOTE] But that's ridiculously circular.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;38037331]Well if the killing of a person is legal under the state, it's not murder at all.[/QUOTE] So if I were to go to a place where there isn't a functioning government and kill someone, it wouldn't be murder? [editline]14th October 2012[/editline] Are you one of those people that think that dictionaries establish the meanings of words by fiat?

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38037350]Are you one of those people that think that dictionaries establish the meanings of words by fiat?[/QUOTE] If you aren't going to play by the rulebook, you might as well make up whatever meaning you want for the word and just live by your own purple banana flats.

[QUOTE=Paramud;38037365]If you aren't going to play by the rulebook, you might as well make up whatever meaning you want for the word and just live by your own purple banana flats.[/QUOTE] What do you mean? [editline]14th October 2012[/editline] ugh just read this [url]http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/[/url]

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38037378]What do you mean?[/QUOTE] If there's no standard for what a word means, semantics is useless and no ground will be gained either way. You're literally making an argument impossible for either side.

[IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63480000/jpg/_63480978_63480977.jpg[/IMG] photo of the statue

[QUOTE=Paramud;38037406]If there's no standard for what a word means, semantics is useless and no ground will be gained either way. You're literally making an argument impossible for either side.[/QUOTE] But I'm not saying that? I'm talking about how claiming that a killing by someone who establishes laws isn't murder because murder "by definition" is "unlawful killing", is misleading and fatuous, because it gets across the connotation associated with the common usage of the word "murder" but by appealing to a strict denotational definition.

Where do I buy it?

People need to read the article. It says that the starting price for the auction is $300, and it will most likely go for more.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38036573]He was more of a murderer than most. Like, the average head of state might only have a few thousand deaths on their hands, not hundreds of thousands.[/QUOTE] More along the lines of millions actually, considering 10 million died in the civil war.

[QUOTE=Paramud;38037302]Technically, no. It's all killing, but if you start getting into semantics, murder is specifically unlawful killing with malicious forethought. For instance, killing someone in self-defense is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide]justifiable homicide[/url], not murder.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure his signing of those lists to be executed constitute as "with malicious forethought" when the whole program was called "Red Terror". [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror[/url]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38037648]I'm pretty sure his signing of those lists to be executed constitute as "with malicious forethought" when the whole program was called "Red Terror". [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror[/url][/QUOTE] Not what I was replying to. Technically, murder is not murder if it's considered legal, it's justifiable homicide.

[QUOTE=Paramud;38037689]Not what I was replying to. Technically, murder is not murder if it's considered legal, it's justifiable homicide.[/QUOTE] Thats just a legal definition and is irrelevant

I've been meaning to replace that lawn gnome.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38037720]Thats just a legal definition and is irrelevant[/QUOTE] Not when people are arguing definitions.

[QUOTE=ejonkou;38037637]People need to read the article. It says that the starting price for the auction is $300, and it will most likely go for more.[/QUOTE] God Damnit.

[QUOTE=Paramud;38037766]Not when people are arguing definitions.[/QUOTE] I speak of murder on an ethical point, not a legal point since the law changes from place to place, time to time. Ethically, Lenin is a murderer. If you want to stay with legality arguments - by what legality did Lenin have to sign these lists?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38037827]I speak of murder on an ethical point, not a legal point since the law changes from place to place, time to time. Ethically, Lenin is a murderer. If you want to stay with legality arguments - by what legality did Lenin have to sign these lists?[/QUOTE] His legality.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38037868]His legality.[/QUOTE] Which really isn't the basis of any legality. "Because I said so" is hardly an acceptable law. Calling it a law because he said so doesn't make it so either.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38037827]I speak of murder on an ethical point, not a legal point since the law changes from place to place, time to time.[/QUOTE] Doh ho ho ho, he he he, ah ha, ah ha. I'm sorry, but that's just funny. You do realize that moral ethics, by nature, change from person to person, right? [editline]oh hamburgers[/editline] Oh, right, the rest of your post. Sorry. I never argued whether or not Lenin was a murderer. I was pointing out the definition of murder. [editline]oh hamburgers[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38037916]Calling it a law because he said so doesn't make it so either.[/QUOTE] Actually, when you're in a position where you, you know, [b]make laws[/b], it kind of is.

[QUOTE=Paramud;38037689]Not what I was replying to. Technically, murder is not murder if it's considered legal, it's justifiable homicide.[/QUOTE] Let's replace the word "murder" with "flogwug" for a minute: "Flogwug" is defined as killing someone illegally. Lenin decides what is legal and illegal. Lenin decides that when he kills someone, it is legal. Therefore, Lenin is not a Flogwugger. Whether or not someone is a Flogwugger depends only on whether or not they kill someone unlawfully, so the word "Flogwugger" contains no more informational content than that. So you can just substitute "Lenin is not a Flogwugger" with "Lenin does not kill anyone illegally". When it put it this way, it sounds silly to triumphantly say "So [I]by definition[/I], Lenin is not a Flogwugger", when the term "Flogwugger" is just shorthand for something that was in the premises in the first place. The word "murderer" is different though, because it carries all sorts of other connotations that the made-up word "flogwugger" doesn't. The mental image that people get when they read the word "murderer" is someone hacking away at an innocent victim with a pick-axe, or shooting them in the back of the head with a revolver. This is not an irrelevant thing, because it really is part of the informational content of the word "murderer", and to hell with what the dictionary says. Dictionary writers aren't privy to some kind of magical information about the meanings of words, they're just historians of how words are used, and they're operating on the constraint of what they can fit into a 3 line definition. In reality, the word "murderer" triggers a vast chain of emotion, bias, connotation and hidden inference in the brain of the person that thinks about it, which cannot be ignored. Usually when people ask "Is Lenin a murderer" it's shorthand for some other question, since unless there are some actual historical revisionists in the debate, people generally agree on the empirical facts of the matter. We all agree that Lenin (literally or metaphorically) signed the death warrants of countless people, some innocent, some guilty. The question really being asked is usually something like "Was Lenin a morally reprehensible person" or something along those lines. Once we actually acknowledge that that's what we're disagreeing about, the debate can stop being about trifles like the meaning of the word "murderer". Language is a fickle thing.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38036573]He was more of a murderer than most. Like, the average head of state might only have a few thousand deaths on their hands, not hundreds of thousands.[/QUOTE] Then you would have to denounce FDR and Truman as murderers as well, since they were responsible for more deaths than Lenin.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38038284]Then you would have to denounce FDR and Truman as murderers as well, since they were responsible for more deaths than Lenin.[/QUOTE] Guess so.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38038125]Whether or not someone is a Flogwugger depends only on whether or not they kill someone unlawfully, so the word "Flogwugger" contains no more informational content than that.[/quote] To be accurate, it'd have to also include "with malicious intent." [quote]When it put it this way, it sounds silly to triumphantly say "So [I]by definition[/I], Lenin is not a Flogwugger", when the term "Flogwugger" is just shorthand for something that was in the premises in the first place.[/quote] Does it sound silly to you? It makes perfect sense to me. If someone is, by definition, not something, then it's perfectly fine to say that they are, by definition, not something. Because, by including "by definition," you are disregarding all emotional reactions associated with the word. [quote]Once we actually acknowledge that that's what we're disagreeing about, the debate can stop being about trifles like the meaning of the word "murderer".[/QUOTE] I've already said that that's not what I'm disagreeing with. [QUOTE=Paramud;38037941]I never argued whether or not Lenin was a murderer. I was pointing out the definition of murder.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38038284]Then you would have to denounce FDR and Truman as murderers as well, since they were responsible for more deaths than Lenin.[/QUOTE] Truman I can see due to the controversial use of atomic weaponry, but FDR? How?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38038284]Then you would have to denounce FDR and Truman as murderers as well, since they were responsible for more deaths than Lenin.[/QUOTE] FDR was a brilliant man, he wasn't a murderer

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38038342]Truman I can see due to the controversial use of atomic weaponry, but FDR? How?[/QUOTE] The race to get the nuclear weaponry was not started under Truman. There were also an incredible amount of indiscriminate firebombing. I mean you can go into all the bombing in general, since they were inaccurate and used in areas with high population density.

[QUOTE=Paramud;38038324]To be accurate, it'd have to also include "with malicious intent."[/quote] That doesn't solve anything at all. It's like defining a human to be a featherless biped, then when someone claims that a plucked chicken is a human, you say that a human is defined as "a featherless biped with broad nails". [quote]Does it sound silly to you? It makes perfect sense to me. If someone is, by definition, not something, then it's perfectly fine to say that they are, by definition, not something. Because, by including "by definition," you are disregarding all emotional reactions associated with the word.[/quote] Well yes it does sound silly, because the word "murderer" [I]does[/I] have emotional connotations, and you can't remove them just by saying "by definition". It's not clear that that's what you were trying to do, and I'm sorry if this wasn't your intent, but every single time I see people bringing up "by definition" in anything that isn't in the realm of mathematics, it's been to sneakily bring in an extra connotation that wasn't in the original definition. Read the "37 ways in which words can be wrong" that I posted on page 1, I can't be bothered to explain more than that. [quote]I've already said that that's not what I'm disagreeing with.[/QUOTE] Yes, but [I]why bother doing that in the first place?[/I] This isn't a courtroom, you don't usually observe that stringent definition in your day to day life, none of us do; so why bring it up here?

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38038369]FDR was a brilliant man, he wasn't a murderer[/QUOTE] Being brilliant and being a murderer aren't mutually exclusive.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38038443]Being brilliant and being a murderer aren't mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE] He joined WW2 because America was attacked, I wouldn't label him a murderer for defending the country.