View Single Post
  #35  
Old 30 December 2018, 01:50 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,765
Default

No one has ever claimed vets 'believed' in the cause of the war nor that those killed in acts of terror were there because they believed in the cause of the place. So they already wouldn't fit the definition given. The others who would supposedly be rejected may indeed be martyrs to some.

None of the examples you gave is really relevant because you didn't seem to bother finding out whether your (so far arbitrary) definition fit her. Your total argument about that crucial fact is "I doubt [it]."

Finally you give a kind of slippery slope argument for why the dictionary definition is too broad. I think you're about seventeen centuries late to try to rein in the definition. The word has always been applied based on highly various circumstances (including some other than those discussed) and nearly always by others who are supporters of the cause in question. No matter the definition, as one example, I'm pretty sure any one of us would object to saying "Sebastian wasn't a martyr in any sense of the word. He just happened to be in the way of a bunch of arrows and cudgels." In the accounts, he hadn't made any declaration of a willingness to die. He had concealed his faith. "Was he willing to die for the cause before they shot him full of arrows? I doubt it." Well, OK, that opinion is noted.
Reply With Quote