CBC says killing of Palestinians doesn’t merit terms ‘murderous,’ ‘brutal’ ⋆ The Breach
CBC says killing of Palestinians doesn’t merit terms ‘murderous,’ ‘brutal’ ⋆ The Breach
In response to complaints about its coverage, CBC says Israeli state violence is different than Hamas’ violence because the killing of Palestinians happens “remotely”
You're viewing a single thread.
Well, they're wrong
They're not. Murder has a specific definition, what's happening in gaza is not it.
Brutal, maybe, but it's a useless word and the editorial guidelines likely provide different words that are more applicable in a reporting context.
Murder does have a specific definition, you are correct in that.
What's happening in Gaza meets that definition, so you are wrong in that.
No it doesn't, the government of Israel is giving the orders, and therefore it's not murder. Governments can't murder, there are other words that describe when a government kills people.
governments can't murder
Funniest shit I read today, thank you
You can't read full sentences clearly.
Do you prefer the term "war crime"?
CBC has used other words, including war crime. That's kinda the point.
They have specific journalistic ways of describing things in many different contexts. https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/vision/governance/journalistic-standards-and-practices
I quoted the dictionary definition of murder above. Can you point to the part that says governments can't murder?
If we're being technical, then it's the one you crossed out that says
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
Because CBC is using murder as a legal definition, not common parlance, and it doesn't fit the legal definition of murder. But I get it, you don't want technicalities.
You are correct, but technically, the killing of civilians during warfare is called "a war crime".
Because CBC is using murder as a legal definition…
[citation needed]
But I get it, you don’t want technicalities.
I don't want FUCKING LEGAL DEFINITIONS in a FUCKING NON-LEGAL CONTEXT you UTTER FUCKING IDIOT. For a pedant you FUCKING SUCK at words.
Stop digging. You don't get out of a deep hole of idiocy that you've dug for yourself by digging harder. Just shut the fuck up you idiot.
I don't even disagree with you, but you're not helping your argument by throwing a tantrum. If you can't communicate your point without resorting to name calling, you should probably just say nothing.
Soldiers sniping obviously innocent people (including women going to church, and hostages trying to escape in their underwear waving white flags) is definitely murder.
If a solider is operating on orders when killing civilians, it's legally not murder. It's still bad, but they will not charged by the government with murder because it was authorized by the government.
That's what I'm saying here. There are legal definitions for these words that matter.
Ah, so it's war crimes. I was worried there for a bit.
/sI mean, yes? Exactly? Words matter. The right words matter. Just because a group is doing something negative does not mean every negative word applies to them. That's small brain thinking.
When you use the right words to describe a horrible action, it's accusation and condemnation. When you use the wrong words, it just becomes name calling.
You know what else may be considered small brain thinking? Acting so pedantic over insignificant details like these, all while real people continue to die every day. The end result is the same: a mass slaughter of innocents.
But that's just my opinion.
You know what else is small brain thinking? INCORRECTLY being pedantic about word choices. That's the part that pisses me off the most with these apologists. They are literally incorrecting people using words properly.
So because something bad happened and we're all emotional, we're supposed to ignore critical thinking and just go along with whatever people say that makes them feel better about the situation, regardless of if it's correct or not? There's a sort of merit in that I suppose, but it's not for me.
What about this discussion do you think is intended to make anyone feel better?
I cited the definitions of "murder" above. Explain to me, with reference to these definitions, how the term "murder" doesn't apply. (Hint: this is not possible.)
"Legal" definitions are for "legal" actions and "legal" contexts. Like an international criminal court.
This is reportage for a general audience, not legal briefs. Fuck off with your legalistic shit.
Yes. Murder has very specific definitions. (Note the plural.) Let me help you out with this, Sparky:
murder
/ ˈmɜr dər /
noun
-
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder, ormurder one ), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder, or murder two ). -
Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
verb
-
Law. to kill by an act constituting murder. -
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
-
to commit murder.
The slang definition doesn't apply, so
2. A newspaper is not a court of law, so the legal definitions are gone:1and3. That leaves 5 (which itself is just a reference to the legal definition, so5) and 4.I think 4 applies fully here. What's happening in Gaza is definitely a slaughter, definitely inhuman, and definitely barbarous. This is also the correct register for informal reportage not related to legal actions.
So perhaps if you want to argue based on definitions you should fucking read the dictionary first, Sparky. Or get used to people pointing and laughing at you in your clown pants.
-