On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:08:12 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:00:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about ten are
well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him, and in my
experience, nearly all adults who support capital punishment do so precisely
because they understand that *very* clearly.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word here.
It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"

Common usage. Not the actual meaning of the word.

LOL -- what do you mean, "not the actual meaning of the word"?? That's
straight out of a dictionary.


And that's where you got YOUR usage? Some people have what it takes to
be able to live with circular reasoning.

But I guess you know more about the "actual meaning" than the people that put
the dictionary together. Riiiiiiiiight.

"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal penalty."

A very SPECIFIC definition.

"executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2. One who puts
another to death."

By executing (carrying out) the death sentence.

By executing the prisoner.

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Realize that dictionaries follow common use, not necessarily correct
use. "execute" means "do".

It *also* means "to subject to capital punishment" (cited above).

It's a distortion of the word.


Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood meaning:
within, or allowed by, law.

THAT is nonsense. You've just defined one thing 'lawful" in terms of
an equally vague and inconsistently defined thing.

More nonsense. Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Never heard of laws changing?


Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.

Whether the law does, or does not, correspond to reality (or your perception
of reality) is of course completely irrelevant to the question of whether any
particular act is, or is not, within the law.

If IS relevant to something having an actual meaning or not.

Like that sentence?

Eventually, trying to convince [deleted] of simple and obvious things
ceases to be fun.

ROTFLMAO!

I wouldn't use that if it wasn't true. I do use LOL sometimes (when
it's really happening). Actually, meaning is damaged when these things
are said too much.

Where's all those loose asses? :-)
--
60 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy