Tom Sawyer

stretch,

My point was that by calling the killing unintentional, they are not only saying that the second definition of the word applies, but that the first definition does not apply. That is clearly wrong since it applies well to the situation.

For instance, take this phrase:

John found the IRS's taxing of him to be quite taxing.

Two different definitions of the word 'tax' are used here:

1) A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
2) A burdensome or excessive demand; a strain.

The equivalent argument that your friends are making is that since the second use of tax in the sentence uses the second definition of the word, 'a burdensome or excessive demand; a strain', and therefore the first use of the word does not use the first definition of 'tax'. When you apply the word tax to each part of the sentence a different definition of it is used. It's the same with the example that you gave - when you apply the word intention to each part of the situation, a different definition is used. By saying that the act is unintentional, you are saying that no definition of the word applies. That is clearly wrong.

It's one of my pet peeves when people give philosophical arguments that involve a use of a word where the only argument is based on the fact that they are not using the word properly. This is one of those situations. I see these as semantic discussions and not philosophical ones and they just bother me for some reason.

stretch

Hi peteyh,

I got your point the first time. The word is being used equivcocally .