This is because they cannot claim copyright to the individual words and their meanings. Otherwise, the bolded part would not be needed, as they could then claim copyright on all of it.
False. The reason not all of it is copyrighted is because they've been publishing dictionaries for more than 97 years, and thus copyrights on the older bits are expired already.
It's called entrapment, the police may not be able to do it but I think it's ok for the RIAA to do it.
By legal definitions, this is not "entrapment", although by natural English-language meanings.
Police officers cannot commit entrapment, but they can for example buy cocaine from someone and then arrest him for it, which is not much different from downloading P2P files to find out who's sharing them. To be a legal defense, entrapment must be much more involved than just quickly asking someone to do a crime.must be more in
If "sexual relations" are defined as the touching of another's sex organs, then one person can have non-reciprocal sexual relations.
But since that's not how it's defined... the rest of your example is wrong.
you'd have to say that the copying is taking place in the computer of the uploader, but as the copy is only completed in the downloader's computer
Whose computer it happens on is irrelevant- what matters is which human initiated the act. (Both people might be using a public/3rd party machine, for example). If I allow you to borrow my gun, you are the one guilty of any assaults committed with it, not me.
The illegal copy happens when the uploader sends a copy of a local file over the line. At that moment, we go from having one copy to two.
That statement is only true if you take "uploader" to mean the computer or computer program hosting the file. But inanimate tools are not subject to criminal liability- the people operating them are.
And in the normal use of P2P networks, the person who instructed the server software to make the copy is in fact not only the "downloader", but also the "uploader": that person, via her client-software, commanded the server to create the copy and send it to her.
Whoever installed and prepared the server side intentionally helped create the copy, but he was not the person who made the copy.
Compare with the physical world: if I lay a newspaper and a plugged-in Xerox machine on the sidewalk outside my house, I am creating an environment where copyright infringment is easy, but not committing any infringement myself. The "copy" doesn't happen until someone walks along and starts running off pages.
It's the same as if I plant a bomb in a house, and you activate the detonator. You are guilty of murder, and because I helped, I am a material accomplice, even though I didn't commit the actual attack.
There is not "no creativity". There is at least minimal creativity in each one, which is about as much as was required for me to author this tiny post. And yet, my post is completely copyrighted, just as each entry of a dictionary is, leaving you: completely wrong.
Actually, the contents of Websters Dictionary never had copyright protection,
Yet another claim completely opposite to easily testable facts, just like everything else you've added to this thread.
Copyright Notice
MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE contains copyrighted material, trademarks, and other proprietary information.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE (www.Merriam-Webster.com) copyright 2004 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. A MERRIAM-WEBSTER, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, COLLEGIATE, WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE, WEBSTER'S UNABRIDGED, WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL AND DESIGN, MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY AND DESIGN, and CIRCLE WITH NW MONOGRAM AND WEBSTER'S, are trademarks of Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
All rights reserved. No part of the work embodied in Merriam-Webster's pages on the World Wide Web and covered by the copyrights hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means--graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems--without the written permission of the publisher.
By "original", I didn't mean the very first release, but rather releases from the original creator of the BT protocol, Bram Cohen, as opposed to the much-more-elaborate reimplementations. I have no idea when he added the rate limit.
The 30 seconds of download results in less than a second of video, even on a cable modem - unuseable.
Wrong. Cable modem are able to download at 400Kb/s or even higher, which means you're downloading faster than it can be played.
It also cannot be combined with other bits without the help of a tracker.
And since a tracker is available, then the bits do have a use.
If they're supplying the tracker, they're the ones distributing their copyright material.
They're not supplying it, they merely connect to it for a few seconds and log other IP addresses.
No matter how much the **AA screams and moans, copyright violations where the product is not resold are not criminal in many jurisdictions (like 95% of the population of the planet who do not live within the purview of the DMCA, PATRIOT, etc.).
Wrong. Copyright infringement was already criminally prosecutable. Read USC 17 506 (which is NOT the DMCA) to learn something.
with all of your responses to my posts on this subject, is that you seem to be making a fundamental assumption about the definition of evil.
That's true. My first language was English, so I assume "evil" means exactly what the word is defined to mean in a dictionary of the English language: "Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction". There are other valid definitions, but "Whatever God says is evil" isn't amoung them.
Ultimately, the Biblical standard for good and evil is absolute, and it is based on what God says is good and evil.
That is then a circular argument. Under that theory, the statement "God is Good" is content-free: it's equivalent to "God is God-like".
If you're using a completely different definition of words than a dictionary, then there is no way we can communicate. We are effectively speaking separate languages, which are superficially similar but mean completely different things.
It is hardly an unbiased approach to interpreting the Bible.
I feel that ignoring the definitions of words so they won't contradict your position is a fairly biased activity. Indeed, your approach only works if you start with the assumption that the Bible is true, for otherwise you wouldn't accept it's redefinitions. Muslims and Jews can use exactly the same technique to demonstrate the absolute correctness of their own respective creeds, since they all start from the assumption of truth.
There's a big difference between a suspicion and proof.
True. Serious suspicion is what makes the police smash down your door to take your computer, and on it's hard drive they find the proof.
There are so few other explanations of what you could've been doing connected to that bittorrent that they've easily got justification for a search warrant.
Additionally, that 30 seconds of material isn't fair use anyway- the quantity is sufficiently small to be fair, but the manner in which you use it is not.
Reproduction and distribution are equal infringements -- it's the number of them that matters.
Right, the number of infringements matters, therefore bittorrent users are in greater legal jeopardy.
If you click on a file to download with HTTP or FTP, that is exactly one infringement. Click on a bittorrent file, and the software might concievably perform hundreds of uploads before your download is complete, tremendously increasing your liability.
And of course, if you walk away and don't notice when the download finishes, you might remain a torrent seed for days or weeks, performing tens of thousands of infringements.
Of course, other P2P programs from Napster to Kazaa share this characteristic, as they also automatically upload (in their default configurations).
If you don't upload, nobody will upload to you. It's the inherent nature of the protocol.
If that were true, then the protocol wouldn't work. All downloaders would stick at 0%. In reality, there are many bittorrents that go for days with only seeds and no downloaders, and where new downloaders are immediately serviced at a high rate. (This tends to happen with Linux ISOs after the first week's rush to grab them is over)
You could use a client like Azureus to limit the upstream bandwidth used though.
Almost any bittorrent client can do that, including the original.
However, the downloading itself may be an infringement,
I don't remember the current status in Canada, but in the USA (and most of the world), there's no question about it: downloading is infringement by itself. Many downloaders are in denial about this, of course...
By what rational is it that "because you upload and download in parallel" that makes BT 'fast'.
On an individual basis when there's only one downloader, it's not. But given that many people will be attempting to get a file at once, it's faster because instead of ALL of them going to the original providers, they get some of their data from the other downloaders.
Specific example: You start to download, and get 50% of the file at 1 Mb/s (which is the provider's upload cap). Then a new person starts to download too. Under HTTP or another conventional method, your rate goes down to 0.5 Mb/s, because the provider is now serving double the clients. But with bittorrent, the new client can instead start downloading from YOU (on your unused outgoing bandwidth), instead of obstructing your connection to the original source.
Actually, Wine stands for "WINdows Emulator". Someone dishonestly changed it to "not an emulator" later, but even the Wine webpage reveals that is untrue.
Meaning that wine does not add any "extra" layers on top of the os
That's precisely false. Wine absolutely adds extra layers on top of the OS; including the wineserver for example.
The problem is, only a long-time fan with cognitive dissonance could claim that Crusade was anything other than the unmitigated piece of crap that it was.
Nitpicking psychological vocabulary: You use the term "cognitive dissonance" backwards. It really means the discomfort felt at holding two conflicting beliefs, which directs individuals to relieve strain by modifying one of those beliefs.
But in your sentence, you used it to indicate the lack of such discomfort. Inserting the word "unresolved" would correct the usage, but it remains a gratuitious insertion of pretentious psychobabble.
there was an arc -- something almost unheard of in television science fiction at the time or since
Without a caveat like "in popular USA programming", that overgeneralization is false. Sci-fi anime (which is usually constrained to less than 1 year for the whole run) provides especially abundant exceptions.
Crusade was a pathetically hollow attempt to set up a dungeons-and-dragons style quest, right down to adding one character of each DD clas
And it couldn't even do that properly. One of the points of a Tolkien/D&D adventure is cooperation not just between different professions, but different races of characters. B5 was nice in that it allowed several species to have interesting characters (instead of just defining an alien race with Star Trek-style stereotypes). Crusade lost something by going human-centric (besides other conceptual shortcomings).
In a way, that problem could be just a symptom of Crusade's other great problem: budget. B5 was constantly exceeding it's budget, and the special effects (both in makeup, stunts, and outer-space CGI) suffered for it. It looks like Crusade decided to aim lower in those regards, but it was too high a price- B5 fans had been willing to overlook when effects fell short and appreciate the effort.
The fact that Galen -- the most hilariously bad character from Crusade is going
I didn't like him either... but slapping a Vorlon suit onto the guy would've made him tolerable. Anything sounds more profound if said through a speech-synthesizer!
Even better! It's not fair to punish people who were simply unlucky to be born in Muslim culture, so it's great to know that God is fair and won't do that.
The biblical answer to your argument for contradiction is that it is possible to make a substitution
Is that the Chewbacca defense?
but according to the God of the Bible, this is justice
To a rational listener, a line like that bears no response. I've already demonstrated places in the Bible where God is described behaving in ways inconsistent with goodness, justice, and mercy. But because that same book elsewhere says He is good, just, or merciful, you decide that the earlier examples just don't matter, instead of noticing that the whole thing is self-contradictory* and thus (at least partially) false.
Why bother pretending to make a rational argument if you just ignore the conclusions and trump everything with "The Bible says so"? Don't answer, that was rhetorical. I know the reason: because going through the motions of sensible consideration attracts people who like the idea of reasoning, but who can't always recognize it. It's "argument by tone of voice": use big words and complex sentences, and sound serious and confident, and you will be believed. I shouldn't feign surprise that theology still packs them in 6000 years later.
The Christian version of this would have another character, the son of the judge.
Haven't you heard? Jesus is LORD. He is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They're not different people, they're the same guy.
But if theoretically they were different people, that'd make it even more wrong.
So, the judge, in his mercy, without any merit on the part of the defendant, punishes his own son instead of the defendant.
That's not mercy, that's sadism. And still injustice, to boot.
* More fun with contradictions: Is pride a sin? Is God proud, or humble? Is God a sinner? Is He welcome in His own presence? The mind boggles...
There is not time enough for me to go into the great many details
Go ahead! Completely ignore the fact that with one counterexample I've demonstrated your claim regarding God NEVER commanding evil deeds to be false, and type out 300 words of theological boilerplate on an irrelevant disgression. I won't mind at all.
This is a good example of how important faith is to God.
I would've called it an example of faith's import to Christianity, but "God" works too.
Additionally, it is also a very very special case.
Extending that paradigm to the remainder of the animal kingdom, it is therefore perfectly okay for vegetarians to eat eggs, as it is not really a chicken yet.
The word is "vegetarian", not "no-animals-arian". Vegetarians, by rights, should only eat vegetables. Eggs and milk are not animals, but they are animal tissue, in the same way that your leg isn't an animal. That's what the word originally meant, and what it still means to biologists: Cows are vegetarians, but pigs are not.
However, a human dietary movement based on the no-meat idea improperly claimed the word "vegetarian" for themselves, leading to the creation of "vegan" to denote genuine vegetarians.
More generally, God never has given a blanket commandment to kill those who don't believe in him.
As I already said, that's technically true, but it is dishonest to use that as an argument against the claim that God has ordered the massacre of nonbelievers in the past.
Here are the original quotes (for anyone that happens to read this thread later):
And if God tells you to strap on a belt of explosives and slaughter the infidels, well, that's His will and you'd better obey, right?
The God of the Christian Bible never commands Christians to kill unbelievers.(*)
That statement is accurate but misleading, because the God of the Christian Bible has has commanded Jews to do such things. Your mention that God doesn't have a standing order out right now to do that in no way disputes the fact that he's done them before. Thus such commands aren't out-of-character for God.
Slashdot Mirror
This is because they cannot claim copyright to the individual words and their meanings. Otherwise, the bolded part would not be needed, as they could then claim copyright on all of it.
False. The reason not all of it is copyrighted is because they've been publishing dictionaries for more than 97 years, and thus copyrights on the older bits are expired already.
It's called entrapment, the police may not be able to do it but I think it's ok for the RIAA to do it.
By legal definitions, this is not "entrapment", although by natural English-language meanings.
Police officers cannot commit entrapment, but they can for example buy cocaine from someone and then arrest him for it, which is not much different from downloading P2P files to find out who's sharing them. To be a legal defense, entrapment must be much more involved than just quickly asking someone to do a crime.must be more in
If "sexual relations" are defined as the touching of another's sex organs, then one person can have non-reciprocal sexual relations.
But since that's not how it's defined... the rest of your example is wrong.
you'd have to say that the copying is taking place in the computer of the uploader, but as the copy is only completed in the downloader's computer
Whose computer it happens on is irrelevant- what matters is which human initiated the act. (Both people might be using a public/3rd party machine, for example). If I allow you to borrow my gun, you are the one guilty of any assaults committed with it, not me.
The illegal copy happens when the uploader sends a copy of a local file over the line. At that moment, we go from having one copy to two.
That statement is only true if you take "uploader" to mean the computer or computer program hosting the file. But inanimate tools are not subject to criminal liability- the people operating them are.
And in the normal use of P2P networks, the person who instructed the server software to make the copy is in fact not only the "downloader", but also the "uploader": that person, via her client-software, commanded the server to create the copy and send it to her.
Whoever installed and prepared the server side intentionally helped create the copy, but he was not the person who made the copy.
Compare with the physical world: if I lay a newspaper and a plugged-in Xerox machine on the sidewalk outside my house, I am creating an environment where copyright infringment is easy, but not committing any infringement myself. The "copy" doesn't happen until someone walks along and starts running off pages.
It's the same as if I plant a bomb in a house, and you activate the detonator. You are guilty of murder, and because I helped, I am a material accomplice, even though I didn't commit the actual attack.
Copyright - covers a literary work,
False. Photographs, music, and movies are non-literary, but absolutely copyrightable.
Note that trademarks are valid only in a specific industry.
Sometimes true, but not always.
There's no/minimal creativity there.
There is not "no creativity". There is at least minimal creativity in each one, which is about as much as was required for me to author this tiny post. And yet, my post is completely copyrighted, just as each entry of a dictionary is, leaving you: completely wrong.
Yet another claim completely opposite to easily testable facts, just like everything else you've added to this thread.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE contains copyrighted material, trademarks, and other proprietary information.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE (www.Merriam-Webster.com) copyright 2004 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
A MERRIAM-WEBSTER, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, COLLEGIATE, WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE, WEBSTER'S UNABRIDGED, WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL AND DESIGN, MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY AND DESIGN, and CIRCLE WITH NW MONOGRAM AND WEBSTER'S, are trademarks of Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
All rights reserved. No part of the work embodied in Merriam-Webster's pages on the World Wide Web and covered by the copyrights hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means--graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems--without the written permission of the publisher.
There is no originality in defining a word,
Flat-out wrong... and all the other pages of wasted text you posted are based on that single, wrong idea.
the original didn't have upstream limiting
By "original", I didn't mean the very first release, but rather releases from the original creator of the BT protocol, Bram Cohen, as opposed to the much-more-elaborate reimplementations. I have no idea when he added the rate limit.
The 30 seconds of download results in less than a second of video, even on a cable modem - unuseable.
Wrong. Cable modem are able to download at 400Kb/s or even higher, which means you're downloading faster than it can be played.
It also cannot be combined with other bits without the help of a tracker.
And since a tracker is available, then the bits do have a use.
If they're supplying the tracker, they're the ones distributing their copyright material.
They're not supplying it, they merely connect to it for a few seconds and log other IP addresses.
No matter how much the **AA screams and moans, copyright violations where the product is not resold are not criminal in many jurisdictions (like 95% of the population of the planet who do not live within the purview of the DMCA, PATRIOT, etc.).
Wrong. Copyright infringement was already criminally prosecutable. Read USC 17 506 (which is NOT the DMCA) to learn something.
with all of your responses to my posts on this subject, is that you seem to be making a fundamental assumption about the definition of evil.
That's true. My first language was English, so I assume "evil" means exactly what the word is defined to mean in a dictionary of the English language: "Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction". There are other valid definitions, but "Whatever God says is evil" isn't amoung them.
Ultimately, the Biblical standard for good and evil is absolute, and it is based on what God says is good and evil.
That is then a circular argument. Under that theory, the statement "God is Good" is content-free: it's equivalent to "God is God-like".
If you're using a completely different definition of words than a dictionary, then there is no way we can communicate. We are effectively speaking separate languages, which are superficially similar but mean completely different things.
It is hardly an unbiased approach to interpreting the Bible.
I feel that ignoring the definitions of words so they won't contradict your position is a fairly biased activity. Indeed, your approach only works if you start with the assumption that the Bible is true, for otherwise you wouldn't accept it's redefinitions. Muslims and Jews can use exactly the same technique to demonstrate the absolute correctness of their own respective creeds, since they all start from the assumption of truth.
There's a big difference between a suspicion and proof.
True. Serious suspicion is what makes the police smash down your door to take your computer, and on it's hard drive they find the proof.
There are so few other explanations of what you could've been doing connected to that bittorrent that they've easily got justification for a search warrant.
Additionally, that 30 seconds of material isn't fair use anyway- the quantity is sufficiently small to be fair, but the manner in which you use it is not.
Reproduction and distribution are equal infringements -- it's the number of them that matters.
Right, the number of infringements matters, therefore bittorrent users are in greater legal jeopardy.
If you click on a file to download with HTTP or FTP, that is exactly one infringement. Click on a bittorrent file, and the software might concievably perform hundreds of uploads before your download is complete, tremendously increasing your liability.
And of course, if you walk away and don't notice when the download finishes, you might remain a torrent seed for days or weeks, performing tens of thousands of infringements.
Of course, other P2P programs from Napster to Kazaa share this characteristic, as they also automatically upload (in their default configurations).
If you don't upload, nobody will upload to you. It's the inherent nature of the protocol.
If that were true, then the protocol wouldn't work. All downloaders would stick at 0%. In reality, there are many bittorrents that go for days with only seeds and no downloaders, and where new downloaders are immediately serviced at a high rate. (This tends to happen with Linux ISOs after the first week's rush to grab them is over)
You could use a client like Azureus to limit the upstream bandwidth used though.
Almost any bittorrent client can do that, including the original.
However, the downloading itself may be an infringement,
I don't remember the current status in Canada, but in the USA (and most of the world), there's no question about it: downloading is infringement by itself. Many downloaders are in denial about this, of course...
By what rational is it that "because you upload and download in parallel" that makes BT 'fast'.
On an individual basis when there's only one downloader, it's not. But given that many people will be attempting to get a file at once, it's faster because instead of ALL of them going to the original providers, they get some of their data from the other downloaders.
Specific example: You start to download, and get 50% of the file at 1 Mb/s (which is the provider's upload cap). Then a new person starts to download too. Under HTTP or another conventional method, your rate goes down to 0.5 Mb/s, because the provider is now serving double the clients. But with bittorrent, the new client can instead start downloading from YOU (on your unused outgoing bandwidth), instead of obstructing your connection to the original source.
An emulator changes hardware calls from their native format into the format of the machine running them.
No, that is absolutely not what "emulator" means.
Wine is an emulator by the definitions used both in normal English speech and computer science.
Wine is not an emulator
Actually, Wine stands for "WINdows Emulator". Someone dishonestly changed it to "not an emulator" later, but even the Wine webpage reveals that is untrue.
Meaning that wine does not add any "extra" layers on top of the os
That's precisely false. Wine absolutely adds extra layers on top of the OS; including the wineserver for example.
The problem is, only a long-time fan with cognitive dissonance could claim that Crusade was anything other than the unmitigated piece of crap that it was.
Nitpicking psychological vocabulary: You use the term "cognitive dissonance" backwards. It really means the discomfort felt at holding two conflicting beliefs, which directs individuals to relieve strain by modifying one of those beliefs.
But in your sentence, you used it to indicate the lack of such discomfort. Inserting the word "unresolved" would correct the usage, but it remains a gratuitious insertion of pretentious psychobabble.
there was an arc -- something almost unheard of in television science fiction at the time or since
Without a caveat like "in popular USA programming", that overgeneralization is false. Sci-fi anime (which is usually constrained to less than 1 year for the whole run) provides especially abundant exceptions.
Crusade was a pathetically hollow attempt to set up a dungeons-and-dragons style quest, right down to adding one character of each DD clas
And it couldn't even do that properly. One of the points of a Tolkien/D&D adventure is cooperation not just between different professions, but different races of characters. B5 was nice in that it allowed several species to have interesting characters (instead of just defining an alien race with Star Trek-style stereotypes). Crusade lost something by going human-centric (besides other conceptual shortcomings).
In a way, that problem could be just a symptom of Crusade's other great problem: budget. B5 was constantly exceeding it's budget, and the special effects (both in makeup, stunts, and outer-space CGI) suffered for it. It looks like Crusade decided to aim lower in those regards, but it was too high a price- B5 fans had been willing to overlook when effects fell short and appreciate the effort.
The fact that Galen -- the most hilariously bad character from Crusade is going
I didn't like him either... but slapping a Vorlon suit onto the guy would've made him tolerable. Anything sounds more profound if said through a speech-synthesizer!
Particularly when DS9 introduced the conflict with the Klingons
Erm, as soon as DS9 was introduced the B5 comparisons started!
God is also fair and just.
Even better! It's not fair to punish people who were simply unlucky to be born in Muslim culture, so it's great to know that God is fair and won't do that.
The biblical answer to your argument for contradiction is that it is possible to make a substitution
Is that the Chewbacca defense?
but according to the God of the Bible, this is justice
To a rational listener, a line like that bears no response. I've already demonstrated places in the Bible where God is described behaving in ways inconsistent with goodness, justice, and mercy. But because that same book elsewhere says He is good, just, or merciful, you decide that the earlier examples just don't matter, instead of noticing that the whole thing is self-contradictory* and thus (at least partially) false.
Why bother pretending to make a rational argument if you just ignore the conclusions and trump everything with "The Bible says so"? Don't answer, that was rhetorical. I know the reason: because going through the motions of sensible consideration attracts people who like the idea of reasoning, but who can't always recognize it. It's "argument by tone of voice": use big words and complex sentences, and sound serious and confident, and you will be believed. I shouldn't feign surprise that theology still packs them in 6000 years later.
The Christian version of this would have another character, the son of the judge.
Haven't you heard? Jesus is LORD. He is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They're not different people, they're the same guy.
But if theoretically they were different people, that'd make it even more wrong.
So, the judge, in his mercy, without any merit on the part of the defendant, punishes his own son instead of the defendant.
That's not mercy, that's sadism. And still injustice, to boot.
* More fun with contradictions: Is pride a sin? Is God proud, or humble? Is God a sinner? Is He welcome in His own presence? The mind boggles...
There is not time enough for me to go into the great many details
Go ahead! Completely ignore the fact that with one counterexample I've demonstrated your claim regarding God NEVER commanding evil deeds to be false, and type out 300 words of theological boilerplate on an irrelevant disgression. I won't mind at all.
This is a good example of how important faith is to God.
I would've called it an example of faith's import to Christianity, but "God" works too.
Additionally, it is also a very very special case.
Do you think "constancy" is a sin?
Okay, let's take a simple exercise in logic here.
Yes, let's!
Extending that paradigm to the remainder of the animal kingdom, it is therefore perfectly okay for vegetarians to eat eggs, as it is not really a chicken yet.
The word is "vegetarian", not "no-animals-arian". Vegetarians, by rights, should only eat vegetables. Eggs and milk are not animals, but they are animal tissue, in the same way that your leg isn't an animal. That's what the word originally meant, and what it still means to biologists: Cows are vegetarians, but pigs are not.
However, a human dietary movement based on the no-meat idea improperly claimed the word "vegetarian" for themselves, leading to the creation of "vegan" to denote genuine vegetarians.
As I already said, that's technically true, but it is dishonest to use that as an argument against the claim that God has ordered the massacre of nonbelievers in the past.
Here are the original quotes (for anyone that happens to read this thread later):
The God of the Christian Bible never commands Christians to kill unbelievers.(*)
That statement is accurate but misleading, because the God of the Christian Bible has has commanded Jews to do such things. Your mention that God doesn't have a standing order out right now to do that in no way disputes the fact that he's done them before. Thus such commands aren't out-of-character for God.