No. What would make you think it is, or might be?

Your statements concerned the meanings of the terms in use - i.e. semantics. There's nothing wrong with that. Semantics are important.

Is any of that unclear to you?

The key word there is "quibbling", not "semantics". The definition of mountain lion, dog or science is clearly a matter of semantics. A discussion of the meaning of those terms is a discussion of semantics (as you'd presumably note, "by definition"). Semantics are extremely important. Quibbling over semantics is unhelpful because quibbling over anything is unhelpful. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with discussing semantics.

So if you were convicted (we'll assume wrongly convicted) of a serious crime and your lawyer wanted to push for imprisonment instead of death you'd say "don't bother, it's all much the same to me"? I think most people value their lives rather more highly than that.

Andf loss of freedom for what period of time? You think that 30 years lost freedom is as bad as death, how about 10 years? 5 years? 1 year? If all those are as good and bad as being killed then are they also the same as each other? Does this only apply once you get into a term of years or is half an hour being detained for questioning as bad as being killed too?

The folks at whitehouse.gov don't want to make the case that they're trading under that name. In court they'd tend to actively claim that they're not for sale. Hence no trademark issue.