I am using it to show that a new colloquialism can be supported.
It isn't supported. The argument that these people are fascist revolves around the notion that they are authoritarian, oppressive, dictatorial and expansionist. (and now Dixie's notion that a religion can be deemed a nation state).
It can when the religion itelf is a political movement. Where the ideation regards the leader of the church as the only leader discounting all secular government and replacing them with that leader. It is a political movement. A right-wing one...
These characteristics aren't fascistic in themselves, they are shared by Monarchies, Soviet Communism, Theocracies etc etc.
But not quite as right-winged as this particular movement... fascism is more defensible than these others when faced with that tidbit...
What differentiates these ideologies from fascism is fascism's element of nationalism (that means the supremecy of the nation state).
Which, according to the definition is "typical" not "always present"... That you don't want to recognize that doesn't change that it really is there.
That isn't found with the people we are discussing. They have no interest in the nation state, they over-ride the nation state with the notion of a theocratic empire.
They wish to create a new nation-state with their religious leader as the sole government.
This negates the notion that they are fascist.
It does not. The actual definition does not support that nationalism is the sole defining factor of fascism.
You can say any missplaced term is 'colloquial', but in the realm of politics we have no room for colloqualisms.
Bullpucky, colloquialisms are used in every language everywhere. They are part of language. I have not misplaced or misused the term. In this case one portion of the nation appears to use the term regularly another does not, this is a colloquialism...
We need Socratic clarity in definition.
used a dictionary, one that uses Webster's as a source, you prefer to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions of what you want a word to mean.
I gave you the definition from the Oxford dictionary and from the Oxford political dictionary... and you gave me dictionary.com. Roflmao!
Right, specifically to term a new word with. Etymology of new words never is defined strictly by the definition of another word. It is preposterous to say that you can determine the definition of one word as worthless because it doesn't match the definition of another word exactly and perfectly.
If it did there would be no reason for the creation of the new word.... This is particularly the most indefinsible position I have ever seen you take.
One word doesn't exactly match the definition of another and therefore it cannot be a word? Totally and laughably preposterous.
You must be embarrassed. I know I would be if I were in your position attempting to say that etymology for a new colloquialism isn't definsible because it isn't exactly the same as what you want it to mean,
Have you, like Dixie, taken up the debating tactic of simply ignoring what the other poster has written and then declaring yourself champion?
No, I have specifically pointed out to you where you have gone astray and why I would be embarrassed if I were you. You have, however pretty much done what you say here.
It doesn't fit with the dictionary definition that is used as standard for the English language. Not Dictionary.com, the simplistic child's dictionary.
The new word doesn't fit exactly the definition of another word in the OED? Well, DUH! It's because this word is not that other word! You keep trying to make it that other word, and the whole point is that it is not that word and hence the need for the new terminology.
The new term does not have to match perfectly with any specific definition of a current term. If it did a new term would be unnecessary and redundant. In fact, a new term simply has to meet a new definition, the one that it is supposed to define.
It has to accurately define what is is symbolising. You have simply ignored what I have written explaining why it doesn't define it accurately.
Rubbish, I have pointed out how it does fit, it is you who ignore my points and keep repeating the OED definition of a different word to use to define this one. This is a preposterous argument based solely on what you want the new word to mean, not what it was used to describe.....
That of attempting to say a new word must match perfectly definitions of another word.. That's a rubbish argument and you know it.
Mate, you haven't got an argument, aside from saying 'It's a new word, we can do what we like.'
A term must define what it symbolises. Islamofascism doesn't. I have explained why in this thread. Read it.
We have showed repeatedly that the new term does define what it was meant to and why. So far all you have is that it doesn't perfectly match the definition of a different word! All you keep doing is repeating that it isn't "nationalist" enough.
We have shown:
1. How it could be considered nationalistic if viewed from a different perspective, while recognizing that it is different hence the need to coin the new phrase.
2. How it can apply with secondary as well as primary definitions in a dictionary...
3. How you have agreed with another's usage of that other dictionary before in another thread....
4. How new words do not match definitions exactly with another word, hence the reason they are a DIFFERENT WORD.....
So, go ahead and once again repeat that the OED's very first definition doesn't match what I have stated.... It will only be reiterating an embarrassing position where you argue that this word isn't the same as another....
Make fun of the term, laugh at people who use it, call them christofascists... I'll support you in that. But arguing that this words etymology isn't pure enough is simply laughable.
Dixie has owned you. You must be embarrassed.
A weak debating tactic. Ignore your opponents argument (which you have done. You haven't ONCE addressed my argument, you have merely stated that it is a new word and that the definitions of it's contributary words have no meaning. You haven't addressed once the common characteristics shared with other ideologies that you are attributing to 'Islamicfascism') and declare yourself the winner.
Bullpucky, this is once again the repetition fallacy... I won't even bother cutting and pasting my previous response to this "you haven't ONCE addressed" rubbish from previous in this very post....
Dixie hasn't owned me, he has used his usual weak debating tactics... ignore opponents posts (as have you) and repeated his statement ad nausium.
And again, the repetition fallacy is used.... I again will not bother cutting and pasting my previous response...
Please, read through the posts again.
I know this is difficult stuff to comprehend but a little effort would be appreciated.
Yes, follow your own advise...
Since this is again a reiteration of the same repitition fallacy you have used three times before in this same post I will once again give my standard response....
I will not bother cutting and pasting... blah, blah...
