> Linguistically speaking, there is a vast difference between calling an
> act "monstrous" and identifying an individual as a "monster".
>
> "Monster" implies a fixed state, which is of course impossible (death
> being the only presumptive "fixed state", at least for the foreseeable
> future), hence the usage of same is wholly, blatantly rhetorical.
> Which is fine in some cases, not so in others.
I guess I can't use the word "criminal," either.