Aren’t they?
Jesus, I had to check twice to see you weren’t Bricker. Fuck off with the pedantic legalism.
My opinion on murder is that it requires intent. My other opinion is that most drunks drivers don’t intent to kill pedestrians. Many don’t end up killing pedestrians anyway. They are irresponsible and immoral but not murderous.
That was just a shorthand for criminal intent, but so sowwy I scawed and twiggewd you with the scawy Latin.
Thanks, @Colibri, I missed that. Next hurdle is to actually write an OP.
I would have except you are not accepting messages.
So kept spoilered so others don’t need to read.
Summary
Ask a question and I will rarely ignore.
Pitting SayTwo - #217 by BigT
I don’t spend much time in The Pit. But when I am, I know where I am.
My problem with you? Nothing. You are simply one of the posters whose posts I mostly skim over quickly.
My issues with your posts in this thread, and your behaviors? Lots.
You are taking an attitude that anyone who has a belief other that you must be trolling and of ill intent, because the complete absolute truth of your thought is self-evident.
You made shit up. Or minimally misunderstand very amazingly and then present your confusion as reality that must not be questioned.
Those two together create behaviors that are simultaneously ignorant and arrogant. Either of those alone are tolerable. I tolerate arrogance from those who have a basis for the arrogance. Reluctantly mind you, thinking less of them, but they are smart enough that I’ll grant it. Being ignorant about so much myself I hold ignorance alone against no one (nor talk down to them for their lack of knowing). There is a reason the motto here is fighting against ignorance not fighting against the ignorant. The two in the same person though? That rankles.
Then on top of that you come into the Pit, and appropriate for the Pit insult people, piling on, calling @FigNorton ignorant and accusing him of “blatant trolling” in a thread that I was participating in and found his posts very worthwhile, making shit up about them in a way that involved me. You call another poster a disingenuous murderous asshole. All fair. It’s the Pit. You have an ambition in life to be a bully go at it there and try it out! Thing is don’t play in that sandbox throwing sand at others and then cry unfair when your being such an ass is called out explicitly.
No question you are in good company among posters here with, in my opinion, very delusional senses of the importance and power of their posts here, and the danger of letting “wrong” posts be the last word said.
Few though others though are delusional enough to imagine that they rank as irritating enough that I “hate” them because I point out what I see as irritating about them, fairly mildly, in the freakin’ Pit. I don’t particularly “like” you, at points I have felt sorry for you, but “hate” is a strong emotion that I reserve for extremely few in this world. You I don’t even “dislike” … I just find your posts a bit insufferable is all.
Please make no special effort to not hate me or my bitmoji-style face. Feel free! Enjoy!
And good bye to you as well! 
My opinion on murderous is that it’s only tangentially related to the actual legal crime of murder.
I know what mens rea is, but it has zero applicability to whether anything is murderous.
The US has a concept called “Depraved Heart Murder” that might apply
“It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not. The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as anti-social and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill and to harm”
Correct, the term “murderous” in speech and writing usually references the state of being extremely violent. So it doesn’t necessarily equate to bring criminally guilty of murder, but it does equate to a very violent person.
Negligence that causes harm is in no way murderous and is a misuse of the term.
Huh. No, I don’t think drunk drivers are murderous. Not even close. I think they are morally in the wrong. But I think it has to be your intent to kill someone to be murderous. Careless indifference to the likelihood of harming others doesn’t meet that threshold.
Your use of the term is different from mine, and different from how I’ve heard it used. It’s also different from the on line dictionary Google offers, which gives three options:
capable of or intending to murder; dangerously violent.
“a brutal and murderous despot”
(of an action, event, or plan) involving murder or extreme violence.
(Informal) extremely arduous or unpleasant.
“the team had a murderous schedule of four games in ten days”
Are you saying slamming into someone with a car isn’t extremely violent?
That’s not exclusively what the word means. See Atamasama’s post.
Note, I haven’t commented at all on the use of murderous for the troll, only on whether it applies to drunken driving.
I’m saying that driving drunk is different from having the intent to smash your car into someone else.
No, these are perfectly in line with my usage.
Yeah, i don’t think you can accidentally or carelessly become murderous.
I disagree - choosing to drink and drive is choosing to attempt to murder.
I’m not quibbling over legal niceties here, by the way. I’m talking about the morality of it - every time you drink and get behind the wheel, you’re a potential violent killer.
I think drink driving is neither accidental nor careless. It is intentional.
I agree, and I say that as somebody who did make that poor choice when I was younger (and more stupid) than I am today. Thankfully it was uneventful, but it’s one of those things that is always there in the background noise of memory as an extremely shameful incident.
Not necessarily. Not if it’s not on purpose. Put another way, if you go up to someone and shove them to knock them over, that’s violent. If you are walking and not looking where you are going and accidentally bump into someone, that’s being careless, reckless, irresponsible, negligent, take your pick. But you can’t be violent unless there is intent. Nobody says that a person who unintentionally hurts someone is violent, that’s not what the word means.
I’m definitely not trying to diminish how awful it is to drive drunk, but it just doesn’t fit that term.
Absolutely. That’s why society is very harsh on those who engage in that behavior. It’s unacceptable.
But if I’m not misunderstanding you, you have a perspective that doing something that could increase the likelihood of a bad event occurring is the same as purposefully attempting to cause that bad event. You don’t distinguish, from a moral perspective, between harm caused through intent or negligence. You’re not arguing about legality or general definitions, but your own personal beliefs, correct?
That’s certainly a fairly unique perspective, one not shared by most people. Again, unless I’m totally misunderstanding you; please correct me if I am because I don’t want to misrepresent your viewpoint.
That’s bullshit. Only legalistic definitions like the WHO’s concern themselves with intent.
And if you are going to play dictionary pedant, don’t use the word “violent” and then give me the definition of “violence”
Plenty of definitions there that primarily don’t care about intent.
Yes, in the case of drinking or drug use.
I do. But I don’t consider intentful action like drinking to constitute negligence.
I think you’ll find it’s more than you think
You’re certainly an oddball.