Dictionary definitions are not the be-all and end-all

Posted by: Tasneem Hussain ( Ireland ) on July 01, 1996 at 14:58:10:

In Reply to: Your image of well-researched information breaks down posted by Dave on July 01, 1996 at 01:23:11:

> I was initially impressed by the wealth of facts and figures and apparent knowledge, but there is one thing that I have
> found that breaks the image of well-researched information portrayed in these pages. On one of
> the stickers shown on the merchandise page, there is a slogan about the "murder of animals".

> I am studying law at university, and the definition of murder does NOT cover animals, only human
> beings. Although small, this is a mistake typically made by animal-rights activists and the
> like, and just lowers the whole researched/knowledgable image you strive to portray to one of
> ignorance and dramatic exaggeration.

This is stupid. dictionary definitions are NOT the be-all and end-all of language.
If what you say was correct, we could not use the word murder in SI-FI stories such
as Star Trek to describe the 'killing' of non-human beings, and yet it is obvious to all those
(except perhaps a few people studying law at univeristy) that MURDER is a valid description
for the slaughter of other senient beings, regardless of their species.

> If you're not going to get the facts right, you shouldn't
> distribute them, and I won't read this page again.

Now you are just being plain silly!

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup