A sloppy but common form of “revealed-preferences” critique that disregards context entirely. You see this with other things too:
e.g. “if you really thought abortion was murder, you would take action immediately to stop it.”
What people are doing in this kind of critique is claiming that if you truly believe X is a form of Y, you would act exactly as one would when it comes to instances that fall under the conventional common understanding of Y -- i.e. that understanding where you would (presumably) be endorsed by the public, are conditioned to respond to the particular act in a certain way, and others/institutions are built around facilitating such a response, etc.
Accordingly, there's a myriad of instances where societies that have injunctions against some (overlapping) understanding of murder have engaged in it on a collective scale, and where even people who disagree with it & see said-actions as murder, didn’t take the commensurate action one would expect according to this critique.
e.g. “if you really thought abortion was murder, you would take action immediately to stop it.”
What people are doing in this kind of critique is claiming that if you truly believe X is a form of Y, you would act exactly as one would when it comes to instances that fall under the conventional common understanding of Y -- i.e. that understanding where you would (presumably) be endorsed by the public, are conditioned to respond to the particular act in a certain way, and others/institutions are built around facilitating such a response, etc.
Accordingly, there's a myriad of instances where societies that have injunctions against some (overlapping) understanding of murder have engaged in it on a collective scale, and where even people who disagree with it & see said-actions as murder, didn’t take the commensurate action one would expect according to this critique.