In the same way you can’t apply narrow definition for a word to all situations, when other more contextually correct definitions exist ?

(I mean, you can, but you probably shouldn’t)

You can’t just expand the meaning of a well defined word just because you like the vibe of it applying to the victim group of the day.

Also that is literally how languages change over time, so…yes, you can.

Though having a narrow definition of what a language can and can’t be does track with your general vibe so far…

It doesn’t seem like reason is going to win out here.

Somebody who picks a single narrow definition for a word and then applies that narrow definition to every instance even remotely related ( when other, more contextually correct definitions exist and have been pointed out ) isn’t working with a full deck, intentionally or otherwise.

You can’t reason somebody out of a position they didn’t reason themselves in to.

and this is exactly my point, the definition of the word generally points directly to it being killing in a fashion that is unlawful which rests on the applicable law in the context.

Nation state soldiers killing enemy combatants doesn’t fit this description in most circumstances. (There are of course rules and exceptions etc etc)

I’m not arguing the morality, I’m arguing the factual definition and it’s the reason why i said the language causes it’s own issues.

i consider this specific example to also be an issue of language, which is in itself a construct.

Murder as a word has meaning based in law, which is another construct.

If you were to switch out “murder” for “killing” the outcome remains the same (cessation of life by another party) but the ethical and moral connotations are different.

Some people use murder when they mean killing and vice versa which adds a layer of complexity and confusion.

Though all of that could just be me venturing into pedant country.