Talk:Main Page/archive16

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Kiss

Today's picture is considered one of the classic expressions of eroticism...i wont go into details, but... "The Kiss is a fascinating icon of the loss of self that lovers experience. Only the faces and hands of this couple are visible; all the rest is great swirl of gold, studded with colored rectangles as if to express visually the emotional and physical explosion of erotic love.[1]. Appropriateness?SumsUp 23:01, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Looking carefully, also the feet of the woman are seen! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:09, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Something tells me there is a difference between art and Penthouse.--Elamdri 03:13, 14 July 2007 (EDT)


Keith Ellison wasn't comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler but how the Bush Administration reminds him of the way Adolf Hitler's government expanded its power. Utter tosh as it may be, all the same, comprehension skills seem to be lacking here. How am I supposed to graduate from elementary school[2] if this is the educational stuff I'm using? BritishConservative 08:39, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

One state, two state, red state, blue state...

Given the conservative/republican theme of this wiki, I'm surprised at the default blue of the page. Aren't the "blue" states the other side, as it were? Of course, I never understood how red - the colour of the Communist revolution - was picked for the Republican states to begin with. PFoster 17:52, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Red state/blue state came due to their use as an arbitrary metric in the 2000 election if I recall, the terms then grew from that to be used more generally. I think there was some plan to alternate red and blue or base it upon the incumbent or something like that, but once the terms came into general use the plan fell by the wayside. JoshuaZ 19:19, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

They're just colors. Don't read too far in to it. --9820 18:05, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

The LA Times

Looking at the main page today, I noticed that the LA Times article has been up for nearly a month now with nary a change, and now it seems rather stale. This, of course, got me to wonder, "What qualifies for a main page big article?" Are there plans for a "featured article" type affair, or is it for particularly interesting news, or some other thing?

Anyway, yeah. Just thought you'd like to know my thoughts.--Offeep 23:42, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

"Garbage In, Garbage Out"

This phrase from the front page strikes me as a little harsh - does C-pedia mean to imply that the 97.8% of American high school-aged kids that aren't home-schooled are "garbage?" PFoster 13:31, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't describe a human being as "garbage". The metaphor of "Garbage In, Garbage Out" obviously refers to the teaching of these students (the "Garbage In") and their resultant views and beliefs (the "Garbage Out"). The beliefs and attitudes of the student pictured on the front page is a product of what he has been learning and not learning at public school. Lord help him, and maybe He could if public school weren't so godless.--Aschlafly 13:52, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
If the public schools included God, it would open the way for atheists, Hindus, Muslims, animists, and every non-Christian to be hateful and spiteful of their school system. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 15:17, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
They're not already? File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:21, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Aren't the majority of Americans Christian, at least nominally? If so, that seems to make your (Hoji's) logic: Exclude God, and offend the majority, or include God, and offend the minority. Please excuse me if that doesn't make much sense. Philip J. Rayment 20:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
You guys love to blame the school system for everything.... but you do see that religious schools and churches in general have been responsible for more than a few of American society problems too right? Just checking.... SirJim 15:28, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
What exactly have religious schools done? What society problems have churches caused? Please, do tell. Bohdan 15:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Does little boys being abused by Catholic priests and then the Church trying to cover it up count as a "society problem?" PFoster 15:38, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Public schools have a far greater problem of sex abuse and cover-up. "As many as 10 percent of public school students are targets of unwanted sexual advances, and the perpetrators are often popular, award-winning teachers, a new report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education states."[3] It's liberal bias that singles out the Catholic church for criticism on this issue.
The Columbine-Virginia Tech massacres are anti-Christian and uniquely the product of godless public schools, I'm afraid. Often the killers have even admitted their anti-Christian motives.--Aschlafly 16:42, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
So by your logic, whenever someone commits a terrible act, the system they come from is to blame? So we can blame the entire religious world for the few zealots that bomb clinics? We can consider all pro wrestlers dangerous because Chris Benoit killed his family? You're attacking an entire system because of a few people. Besides, the fact that so many American are still Conservative despite graduating from public schools shows that us liberals aren't quite as coersive as thought. SirJim 18:59, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't believe that's the logic at all. All schools (i.e. government, religious, and other) have problems; none is perfect. The argument is that excluding teaching about the source of morality from government schools will inevitably result in many people abandoning that morality (some will get it from other sources). Religious schools aren't perfect, but because they do teach about the source of morality, the problems they have are significantly fewer and not due to their worldview, but to departures from that worldview. Philip J. Rayment 20:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Philip, that's a circular argument, religious schools don't have problems because they present morality, and when they do have problems, it's because someone went outside their teaching.... So I can't say I agree with your issue, and public schools do teach morality, they just don;t teach that morality is dictated by god (which by the way, a lot of Christian Philosiphers argue against... but this is about the main page and that's better discussed elsewhere) SirJim 21:51, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

No, it's not a circular argument; you have misrepresented what I said. I didn't say that religious schools don't have problems. I said that they have fewer problems, because they teach about the source of morality (i.e. God). And that the problems they do have is due to going outside that teaching. Whether you accept the premises of the argument or not, the logic is valid and not circular.
Yes, government schools do teach morality, but because they don't teach about the source of morality, the morality they teach is (a) sometimes wrong, and (b) more importantly, without basis. If you teach that there is no God (which is effectively the teaching of evolution etc.), then the only basis for morality becomes whatever you think seems good, which is no basis at all. Therefore, if some students decide to "improve the gene pool" by knocking off a few fellow students, that seems good to them. That is, their actions are consistent with the teaching they received, whereas the actions of paedophile priests is inconsistent with their teaching.
Philip J. Rayment 22:24, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
That's the same thing, you said Quote "they have fewer problems, because they teach about the source of morality (i.e. God). And that the problems they do have is due to going outside that teaching." Applying that same logic, you can say that Government schools teach morality, and whenever a tragedy or trouble happens, it's because someone went outside that morality.
On another subject all together, as I stated, even Christian Debaters and Philosiphers don't always agree that God is the source of morality, for several problems arrise when using that logic. Also, your comments state that Quote "Therefore, if some students decide to "improve the gene pool" by knocking off a few fellow students, that seems good to them. That is, their actions are consistent with the teaching they received, whereas the actions of paedophile priests is inconsistent with their teaching." No serial killer ever came out and said that they were doing the right thing, and to my knowledge, none of them have ever attributed their killings to any form of Eugenics, as for the priests, I'm yet to see any Catholic literature that advocates sexual acts with minors.... and just to throw some dirt, Catholics are taught that morality comes from God as Well SirJim 16:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
No, it's not the same thing I said. When government schools teach that there is no absolute basis for morals (i.e. no God), and that morals are what we choose them to be (which is the logical conclusion if there is no absolute basis for them) and that we are merely evolved animals, then it is not going outside that teaching to do bad things to others.
What is wrong with the logic that God is the source of morality?
You claim that no serial killer ever said that they were doing the right thing. What you mean, is the no serial killer that you know of has ever said this. And so what if they haven't? They don't need to say it for it to be the case. But here's one example where one did:
If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing, and I’ve since come to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, and I believe that I, as well as everyone else, will be accountable to Him. (Jeffrey Dahmer)
I don't know what you are getting at with the bit about the priests. They are clearly acting contrary to their teaching.
Philip J. Rayment 01:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Andy, where did the killers in either the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings say that anti-Christian sentiment was a motivation? TigersRoar 21:32, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Why, what planet were you a-roarin' on, Tiger? The two Columbine killers left diaries behind in which they declared their intentions, and the motivation behind the same. So did the Virginia Tech killer. And in the Columbine case, witnesses caught this exchange between one of the killers (I think it was Klebold) and one of his victims:
  • Q. Do you believe in God?
  • A. Yes.
  • Q. Why? (followed by a point-blank shot to the victim's face)
Does that answer your question?--TerryHTalk 21:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Not true, while that is a widely reported myth, the final investigation concluded, based on eye-witness testimony, that if that particular event happened, it was with a sutdent who survived the attacks. SirJim 22:06, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
The anti-Christian animosity is evident in the Columbine killers' writings, and in an article about the Virginia Tech killer that was discussed here after that massacre. You can find this easily on the internet. I would find it for you, if I felt you had an open mind about it. Unfortunately, I expect that you don't sincerely doubt what we are saying, but merely doubt we can prove it and want to put us to the trouble to do so. I've got higher priority objectives right now. Take a look at their writings themselves if you're genuinely interested. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:12, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Just to be clear, the conversation that we had here ( ) sussed out a lot of evidence that he seemed to be deranged and had bizarre religious beliefs by almost anyone's standards. That said, he seemed to think of himself as a Christian, and found himself disappointed in his religion. Granted, the things that a mass murderer finds disappointing are probably things to be embraced. Just sayin', I don't think he saw himself as outside of all religion, despising it. He seemed to see himself as religious, Christian even, but also insane and deriving poor conclusions. Aziraphale 23:37, 15 July 2007 (EDT) <-Disappointed in his dinner...
For the benefit of other readers, the above comment by Aziraphale is referring to the Virginia Tech killer, whose computer messages (likely containing hatred) continue to be withheld from the public. The Columbine investigators did release the writings of the Columbine killers, which contained anti-Christian hatred.--Aschlafly 00:58, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Ooo, good catch. The conversation I linked to was around the time of the Virginia Tech incident, I don't think any comment in there has anything to do with Columbine, nor do I know much about the details of the Columbine incident. Aziraphale 15:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT) <-clarified for your protection...
For the record, TerryH, that was widely reported as being what Cassie Bernall said, but it was later found to be a different exchange with a different student. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 01:11, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Masterpiece of the week shows exposed breasts

Is there some reason we're putting nudity on the main page? Seems inappropriate considering this resource is being used by students.--Conservateur 15:05, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy has stated in the past that artistic nudity (in the specific statement, he was referring to Michelangelo's David) does not merit censorship. This was, however, several months ago. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 15:15, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
There is a difference between presentation in art and in pornography, in which one merits display, and the other merits...well you know what.--Elamdri 15:58, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
I'd love to know what that difference is, because I can't see it. Philip J. Rayment 20:39, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Same here. Xenophobia 22:21, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
There is nothing wrong with the depiction of the human body, male or female, but there is something wrong with pornography (Greek: "a record of prostitutes") and the gratuitous use of nudity purely for sexual gratification. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 05:16, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Fox, thats exactly my thoughts.--Elamdri 06:04, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
First, what's to say that "artistic" nakedness is not "gratuitous use of nudity purely for sexual gratification", and second, who says there's "nothing wrong with the depiction of the [naked] human body, male or female"? Philip J. Rayment 06:29, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

(reset indent)I didn't say "all art is not porn" - I deliberately didn't follow that line of reasoning. As for their being nothing inherently wrong with the human body, Gen 2:25: "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed," "for shame can only arise from a consciousness of sinful or irregular conduct" (Clarke); "Their bodies were sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust of the flesh," (Keil & Delitzsch); the implication being that any sinfulness is purely in the heart and mind of the beholder. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:54, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Acknowledging that some art can be porn does not really answer the question. Yes, Genesis does say that they were naked and not ashamed, and I agree that it is sin that makes it shameful, but "all have sinned", so it is (should be) shameful for all. Philip J. Rayment 09:03, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
That implies that we can only sin, and have no choice in whether we sin or not. Which is not the case at all, otherwise we could all do whatever we fancied, using "original sin" and thus a preordained state of sin as our justification. I can admire great art without sinning, and I'm sure most others can too; it is the perverse and flawed mind which finds arousal in otherwise innocent expression. moreover, the blood of the Lamb cleansed us of sin; He died that we would no longer be sinful. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:20, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Couldn't you also admire pornography without sinning? Couldn't you also walk around naked without sinning? Is being able to "admire great art without sinning" really the point? Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
If it isn't the point, then what is? Pornography, incidentally, is a form of prostitution, which is considered differently. You are trying to obfuscate the argument, which is answered quite clearly above :) Either we are redeemed by the blood of Yeshua Ha Moshiach or the New Testament isn't worth the paper its printed upon. The sin is committed by the individual who takes unnatural pleasure in innocent nudity; the sin is the willful inclination, attitude and thought: just as pusuing adulterous thoughts equals adultery, pursuing thoughts about sex outside of marriage equals fornication. Those who walk in the Spirit can easily discern whether their reaction to a particular image is of innocent appreciation of form or looking "at a woman with lust for her" (Matthew 5:28) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:59, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
The point is that you seem to be splitting hairs. "Pornography" is wrong because of the intentions of the person producing it. "Art" is okay if the intentions of the person viewing it is okay. That's two different rationales being applied with the effect of condemning one with one rationale and justifying the other with a different rationale. Philip J. Rayment 10:11, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
LoL, I'm not. You are. I've already stated that pornography can never be anything other than a sin because it is fornication. A painting of a naked human is not always pornographic simply on the basis that it depicts nudity - that's preposterous. Yes, some paintings are deliberately pornographic, but that doesn't mean that all paintings featuring nudity are. It's a very simple distinction, Scripturally based, as I answered above. Furthermore, one has to accept that often disapproval of nudity is a result of cultural norms/social conditioning, NOT anything that is contained within Scripture. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 11:13, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
You're confusing me. Are you saying that nothing is inherently pornographic; that it is only pornographic depending on how it is used? If so, then perhaps it's okay to stick some "pornography" on the Main Page because we aren't going to use it that way? If not, then what is the distinction between pornography and other "artistic" nudity? Philip J. Rayment 01:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
In the words of SCJ Potter Stewart;
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it"
Quite true. IMHO, The picture on the front page cannot reasonably be interpreted as pornography. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 01:13, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
In other words, "I don't know how to explain the distinction, so just take my word for it that they are not the same thing". Sorry, but if the distinction can't be explained, perhaps there isn't one.
I'll add that this is an issue that I've never looked into to any significant extent, and during this conversation I've thought that perhaps someone will actually be able to make me realise that there is a difference. The problem is, so far it hasn't happened, which tends to reinforce my view that there is no distinction that can be made.
Philip J. Rayment 01:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Fox did a good job of pointing out the distinction; pornography is produced for the sole purpose of arousing sexual feelings in the viewer. That is the distinction between pornography and "normal" art. Nudity in and of itself cannot be sinful, but a graphic depiction of sex - obscenity - is. But to say that all nudity is obscenity? That is (to use the words of Fox) preposterous. We can safely say that this painting (a very famous piece) was not produced for the sole purpose of providing sexual gratification in the viewer. Following this line of logic, I come to the conclusion that Michelangelo's David (well, a huge portion of art from the Renaissance period) should be banned for being pornographic. That is simply untrue. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 01:39, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

As I said, it's getting confusing. I thought that's what Fox was saying was the definition of pornography, then I thought that he said that I had that wrong.

Can I please ask for a simple and clear definition of what makes something pornographic or not. Is it, for example, according to the intentions of the person producing the material, the person viewing the material, or what?

But responding to more of your message, part of your argument is simply state your beliefs as being self-evidently true ("this is simply untrue"), which, if was the case, would not be giving me reason to question. I'm asking for reasons, not bland statements.

Philip J. Rayment 02:01, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

The purpose of modesty is both to limit (male) lust & incontinence and to protect female virtue & chastity. No matter how "artistic" a particular image may be, it is the effect it has on our readers which matters.
Does it uplift them, or drag them down? Generally, people feel that Venus de Milo is a celebration of the female form which (fortunately) fails to excite male lust. Some works found suitable for museum display are frankly erotic.
Let us use our good judgement, and not let enemies of Goodness trick us into agreeing on some mechanical rule which they intend to manipulate. --Ed Poor Talk 08:25, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


I fail to see how Edwards comments, wrong as they may be, can even come close to suggesting that the Democrats rig the election. He said that we should narrow down the candidates.... How much circular reasoning and spin does it take to infer rigging out of that? SirJim 15:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
When I was stationed in Florida during the 2000 election the Democrats tried (and failed, fortunately), to throw out every overseas military ballot that came in. That's called rigging, SirJim. Karajou 21:08, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Irony, anybody?

After reading the posts here I started laughing. I genuinely found it funny that there seem to be more liberal and openminded people here then what we would call American "conservatives." I checked what this wiki had to say on Conservativism as an ideology and political philosophy and it did not mention the so-called father of conservativism Edmund Burke, who rather eloquently put forward a view that stated that Man has a responsibility both to his past and his progeny and that the wide-eyed and idealistic Socialists and Communists of the Ninteeth Century in their support of violent and widespread revolution were being rash. True conservativsm in itself does not reject change or discriminate against people based on if they like boys or girls (or whatever, god knows people like some weird things), but rather states that man needs the framework of government to keep order and in pursuance of that belief it is unfair to flip the table over and start a new game of cards, becuase that new game can be quite violent (re: anarchy and not the peaceful kind). I find it APPALLING that no mention of Burke is on the Conservative page of Conservapedia and find it funny how narrowminded American "Conservativsm" has become. The bible is not a series of historical accuracies but rather a book contaning metaphorical stories that are supposed to teach a lesson. The message in the Creation Story is not that the world is 6000 years old, but rather that humans are flawed and our lives from birth are a struggle to overcome the evils the plague all of us, with an added realization that there is something greater than all of us. These are things that I think it is easy to see in life and the Creation Story is simply one metaphor out of the thousands for teaching this to us.

Please people, think. This being said I would like to hear what some other people have to say about the lack of actucal conservativsm on Conservapedia and the twisted wretch that conservativism has become in America.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rollon067 (talk)

Just picking up on one point: What makes you think that the creation story is a metaphor? Jesus didn't think so. Philip J. Rayment 23:59, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
I picked up a book about the conservative movement and looked in the index for (Irishman) Edmund Burke and did not fine a single reference to him. I rarely hear a conservative invoke his work in a speech or essay. Perhaps the neoconservatives like to cite him, but Burke has little enduring influence on conservativism in America.--Aschlafly 01:07, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Conservatives don't quote him saying, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."???  :-) Philip J. Rayment 01:28, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Ah, that is a great quote. I've quoted him myself for that!!! Thank God for Burke's insight there.--Aschlafly 01:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

This is sort of a ramble, but there's a positive message, here. There's no reason not to cover basics of historical conservativism on this project, so let's get busy! AManInBlack 15:14, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

What I was trying to say about the bible is that it was written in a time when scientific discoveries of the present day were not made, so fantastic explinations were dreamed up by humans for various things. We see this in every ancient culture from the Greeks to the Hebrews, and as we as a species come to understand the world around us these stories no longer have literal meaning but often retain their moral value. Jesus lived 2000 years ago with the knowledge that was avaliable to him at the time and by all accounts he was an ordinary man who attempted to reform Judaeism and who's legacy was heavily embellished starting about fifty years after his death by followers that had never met him (we call those writings our Gospels). As we discover that Jesus was not a mythological godlike figure but rather a man with a great grasp on human nature, perhaps religion will be weakened but the power of his parables as pertain to our lives will not be.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rollon067 (talk)

"fantastic explinations were dreamed up by humans for various things": That is your belief, based on your worldview that rejects the Bible as authoritative. So you (a) reject the Bible as authoritative, then (b) explain Biblical explanations as "dreamed up", then (c) use that to argue that the Bible is wrong. Sorry, but that's a circular argument.
"as we as a species come to understand the world around us these stories no longer have literal meaning": Something can't have a literal meaning one day and not have it the next day. If they once had a literal meaning, they still do, whether they are correct or not.
"Jesus lived 2000 years ago with the knowledge that was avaliable to him at the time ...": Only true if you first of all assume that Jesus was not the all-knowing God, and the Creator of the world. Again, you are begging the question.
" all accounts he was an ordinary man...": Blatantly, obviously, clearly, wrong! You might believe that He was an ordinary man, and you might be able to find other accounts claiming that He was an ordinary man, but it is simply not true to claim that He was an ordinary man "by all accounts" when the main account in question—the Bible—specifically says otherwise!
"...who's legacy was heavily embellished starting about fifty years after his death by followers that had never met him ...": And the evidence for this is...?
"we call those writings our Gospels": Three of those Gospels were written by his disciples, i.e. they knew him personally. The critics (such as you and whomever you got this nonsense from), however, lived around 2000 years after his death. Hmmm.
"As we discover that Jesus was not a mythological godlike figure...": Hooray! You finally said something that I agree with! True, He was not mythological! Nor "godlike"—He was not like God, he is God.
"... but rather a man with a great grasp on human nature, perhaps religion will be weakened but the power of his parables as pertain to our lives will not be.": So if much of what He said and of what is said about Him in the Bible is wrong, why should we take any notice of His parables? No, this is a typical argument pretending to respect the structure of Christianity whilst undermining its foundations. Yet it is so obvious, I wonder why you bother.
Philip J. Rayment 01:22, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Russian royal family "executed"

This use of the term 'executed' is becoming all too common in the media (terrorist threats to 'execute' hostages, etc. etc). I thought execution was the imposition of the death penalty after at least some form of due process by a state-sanctioned authority (leaving aside the question of whether the death penalty itself is justifiable, or is just or unjust in particular cases). To use the term 'executed' as a synonym for 'murdered' muddies the language, and conveys some sort of justification or authorisation for the murderers. The Tsar's family was murdered; Ken Bigley was murdered; all the victims of terrorism over the past years were murdered. Not executed, murdered. Pachyderm 05:20, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Valid point! Not suicide bombers, but Homicide Bombers. The details count. Done. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:51, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, TK. Pachyderm 05:58, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

As they were killed by order of Lenin, execute is the correct term. Your definition of "execute" is flawed. Execute means "to kill in a planned fashion", not necessarily to kill following a trial. Murder implies some form of randomness, execute implies the cold blooded and deliberate nature of the killing. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:23, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Regardless, please put your petty upset with me aside, and don't be taking it out on editors, okay? I believe most people, would say they were murdered, which implies more prejudice than execute. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:52, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
I think I agree with Fox on "executed" (the news sometimes talks about an "execution-style killing"), but not so readily on "murdered". That is, perhaps he is correct in saying that it implies some form or randomness, but I would define "murder" as killing of someone innocent, random or otherwise. Philip J. Rayment 07:58, 17 July 2007 (EDT)