On The Importance of Definition of Terms

OrnotBitwise said:
There are dictionaries and then there are dictionaries. Not all are authoritative: I'm curious as to what the OED has to say on the subject. In any event, I believe that the definition you were using came from Merriam-Websters:

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition -- Emphasis added. O.B.
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

As cypress pointed out yesterday, Islamists are not, generally speaking, nationalists. Their ideology is explicitly anti-nationalist, in fact. My position is that this facet of their ideology means that they don't quite fit within the definition of fascism. Authoritarianism, certainly, but not fascism.
Click to expand...
Once again, even with the strict definition I have shown how the etymology could be defensible.

I have also shown how new colloquialisms are never otherwise put under such strict scrutiny.

Lastly I have made it clear that new terminology would be unnecessary if new words must match perfectly the definitions of words already in use. If such were a requirement for usage, no new colloquialisms would ever be made. It is pointless to attempt to so statically define new terminology.

I can see making fun of the new terminology, but the attempt to define one word away using the definition of another word is preposterous.
 
Damocles said:
Once again, even with the strict definition I have shown how the etymology could be defensible.

I have also shown how new colloquialisms are never otherwise put under such strict scrutiny.

Lastly I have made it clear that new terminology would be unnecessary if new words must match perfectly the definitions of words already in use. If such were a requirement for usage, no new colloquialisms would ever be made. It is pointless to attempt to so statically define new terminology.

I can see making fun of the new terminology, but the attempt to define one word away using the definition of another word is preposterous.
Click to expand...
So you're disputing AnyOld's point about strict definitions. Very well. Carry on. You've just shot up all chance of any debate more elevated than "Yo' momma's so fat . . ." but what the hell.

:tongout:
 
No, I am not. I am disputing that one word's definition must match another's strictly and perfectly.

A new word's definition only has to match one definition, that of iself. Etymology is never perfect and strict for any other word. This attempt to force a one word to fit perfectly the definition of a different word is in itself disingenuous.

Each word is separate and defined separately. Therefore stating that this word must perfectly match the definition of that word is particularly and stunningly hypocritical when coming from somebody looking for accuracy in definition.

It becomes even more so when the etymology was so easily defensible.

It wasn't my side of the argument that was ignoring actual dictionary definitions to pretend that the word couldn't fit the logic pattern we applied.... That was your side.

"Well that dictionary isn't good enough"... It was when you were earlier agreeing with somebody on your side on the definition of another word...

There was only one side ignoring reason when actual dictionary definitions were not matching what the assumed definition was....
 
AnyOldIron said:
Well I believe it is the intentional targeting....

Targeting the enemy's stronghold, that has been firing at them, with no thought to the amount of innocent people that may be harmed while trying to secure their own country's security, is WRONG....in a vacuum....but it is not terrorism...

Clearly marked hospitals, ambulances, aid convoys, well known civilian areas (ie in Beirut), petrol stations and various civilian infrastructure have been directly attacked.

Hardly enemy strongholds....

The IDF could claim that these repeated attacks on civilians were accidents, and that they were targeting Hizbollah and that this is collateral damage, but then Hizbollah could claim that it was targeting the IDF in Haifa, and that the rockets that hit civilians were an accident and collateral damage.

Would you believe them, after so many accidents?

Then you have the declarations by Israeli politicians that the IDF were going to give the Lebanese a taste of what Hizbollah had given Israel.

Terrorism is not excused by the fact that the other side is using terrorism.
Click to expand...

Ok then...Let me ask you this AOI,

Why do you think Hizbollah, crossed illegally in to Israel, and killed 8 of these Israeli soldiers and kidnap two of their other soldiers?

I heard on the news last night that Hizbollah is now asking for the release of 600 Prisoners in Israel, in exchange for these two Israeli soldiers....

And that this was a common tactic of theirs....

Now, WHY do you suppose that Hizbollah felt it was worth crossing the Israeli border to do this violent act upon them WITHOUT THINKING that Israeli would come after them with a vengence?

Is it because they thought somehow that the usa or "the rest of the world" would stop Israel from doing this...from crossing their border as they had just done with this covert operations of theirs that killed the 8 israeli and kidnapped the two? Why would Hizbollah even THINK that they could do this and get away with nothing happening to them or to the people they intermingle with or live with?

Logic is not present with their decision to do this imo..... especially since israel is like a scared cat cornered and was predicted in my opinion to come out with all its wrath so to NIP this whole driving israel in to the sea thingy, in the bud.

I still do NOT CONDONE their actions, there was not enough precautions taken to avoid the killing of innocent people....it was an overkill (on the surface perhaps), that's for certain.....but I also do not think that this whole thing is JUST ABOUT 8 killed soldiers and 2 kidnapped ones....it is MUCH LARGER than that and Israel is surrounded by the enemy, even if they are the ones that created these enemies over the years with some piss poor foreign policies, some at their hands, but some most certainly not, and at the hands of others.

care
 
Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.


Cypress bascially said Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an authortitarian theocrat ...
Does Iran have elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism?

the left will quickly point the finger of Fascism towards the politically right in Western Nations .. but not towards an Individual like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad .. or the other authoritarian Governments in the middle east... hmm... interesting.

...Guess what... That is because an authoritarian regime doesn't therefore equate to fascism.

Ask yourself... Is Ahmadinejad nationalist or corporatist?

Or you could simply ignore the definition of terms and use any word that you think sounds about right?
 
.

Oxford Dictionary:

theocracy

• noun (pl. theocracies) a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.


this is, by far, the most accurate term of the al qaeda movement. A rejection of secular goverment, in favor of a government ruled by mullahs, clerics, and religious authorities, acting on behalf of God and God's law.
 
Ok then...Let me ask you this AOI,

Why do you think Hizbollah, crossed illegally in to Israel, and killed 8 of these Israeli soldiers and kidnap two of their other soldiers?

I heard on the news last night that Hizbollah is now asking for the release of 600 Prisoners in Israel, in exchange for these two Israeli soldiers....

And that this was a common tactic of theirs....

Now, WHY do you suppose that Hizbollah felt it was worth crossing the Israeli border to do this violent act upon them WITHOUT THINKING that Israeli would come after them with a vengence?

A question Care4.

Because Hizbollah conducts terrorist activities against Israel, does that legitimise Israel using terrorism back?

 
OrnotBitwise said:
And you postulate that there *must* exist military solutions? I don't. It's entirely possible that there are no military solutions.

You're asking that of an Englishman? Hello. Remember the Provos -- better known here as the IRA?

Sarcasm aside, the answer is yes. It has worked in the past.

You know what's in their hearts? All of the them, each and every single one? I'm impressed. I certainly don't.

We haven't found out if they are capable of what you're calling honest negotiation. The only way to find that out is to negotiate with them honestly. I've no doubt that not all will prove trustworhy. Many will, however.

By negotiating. He can't have that. He may want it, but he can't have it. What might it take for him to live with not having it? That's the question.

Of course not. Who's advocating that, apart from a handful of hotheads, mostly extremely poor people in the middle east? Israel's existence isn't on the table. In fact, it isn't particularly threatened. Unless the Israelis are all going to shrivel up and die from harsh language.
Click to expand...




I think my last paragraph explains my personal theory on how a non military approach will work.

I believe I was speaking of this current situation...and with all due respect ..the IRA was a horse of a different color ..or colour ...

Do I know whats in their hearts? All of them? No.. of course not.. but I sure as hell know whats in the hearts of their leaders ... all one needs to do is listen to their words and thereafter ...watch the action .....

We havent found out if they are capable of honest negotiation ..? Prior to the shit hittin the fan every so many years ..what was going on during the gaps of flying shit? I maintain.. it is not the people ... it is the leadership that drives the people into behaving the way they do ...
Peace will come by way of demands ... the source of the demand being the People. The Islamic People, those that are under the grips of extreme theocratic influence .. as a whole must awaken.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants the destruction of Israel.. he is convinced he is on a Holy Mission ..and will do all he can to usher in the 12th Imam.. part of his plan, he is a very dangerous man. His role is becoming more important with each passing day.

If a leader arises in Canada or for the sake of the Brits .. Ireland ... and begins an aggressive plan to build and asenal of WMD's ..and openly speaks of his/her hatred for their Neighbors and advocates blowing them off the map.. Im sure we would stand idle and negotiate a group hug.
 
Cypress said:
Oxford Dictionary:

theocracy

• noun (pl. theocracies) a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.


this is, by far, the most accurate term of the al qaeda movement. A rejection of secular goverment, in favor of a government ruled by mullahs, clerics, and religious authorities, acting on behalf of God and God's law.
Click to expand...
Yes, but saying we were at war with theocracy would be inaccurate. We are not. There are theocratic governments, in fact one in exile in the US currently, that we support. Hence when creating the new word they more specifically defined which theocrats they were at war with.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Ok then...Let me ask you this AOI,

Why do you think Hizbollah, crossed illegally in to Israel, and killed 8 of these Israeli soldiers and kidnap two of their other soldiers?

I heard on the news last night that Hizbollah is now asking for the release of 600 Prisoners in Israel, in exchange for these two Israeli soldiers....

And that this was a common tactic of theirs....

Now, WHY do you suppose that Hizbollah felt it was worth crossing the Israeli border to do this violent act upon them WITHOUT THINKING that Israeli would come after them with a vengence?

A question Care4.

Because Hizbollah conducts terrorist activities against Israel, does that legitimise Israel using terrorism back?
Click to expand...

You need to answer first all of my questions, since I asked first....! :D
 
Let me ask you, Arnold... why do you feel compelled to reel off another thread to continue insisting you are right, when you've been proven wrong in the previous thread?

From Dictionary.com
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

fas·cism n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


Caliphate n

1: the era of Islam's ascendaancy from the death of Mohammed until the 13th century; some Moslems still maintain that the Moslem world must always have a calif as head of the community; "their goal was to reestablish the Caliphate" [syn: Caliphate] 2: the territorial jurisdiction of a caliph 3: the office of a caliph

na·tion·al·ism n.
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

=====================================
The only argument you have against the use of the word "fascist" in describing the radical Islamic movement, is that it doesn't involve "nationalism." Take a look at the definition of "Caliphate" and explain to me how this is not a "nationalist" concept? Of course, there is no established physical "nation" at this time, but who can predict what will be, after the Caliphate is established? Perhaps they will rally around Islamofasciopia the same way Italian's rallied around Italy? Perhaps they will call their Caliph, Abu Mussolini? Regardless of what might happen when they achieve their FASCIST goal to gain oppressive, dictatorial control, it doesn't change what they are presently.
 
klaatu said:
So ..lets look at fascist

Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.


Cypress bascially said Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an authortitarian theocrat ...
Does Iran have elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism?

the left will quickly point the finger of Fascism towards the politically right in Western Nations .. but not towards an Individual like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad .. or the other authoritarian Governments in the middle east... hmm... interesting.
Click to expand...

Cypress bascially said Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an authortitarian theocrat ...

YES.

Does Iran have elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism?

Corporatism? No. The bulk of the iranian economy - the energy sector - is State owned and run. Authoritarian? Yes. Extreme Nationalism? Tricky. What is "extreme" nationalism. Perisans are certainly a proud culture. Iran certainly wants to be a regional power. Is that "extreme" nationalism? Militiaristic? Not much evidence of that. In modern history, Iran has never invaded its neighbors. Does it try to project power and influecne by supporting proxies? Yes.

As a whole, then Iran does not meet all of your criteria for a fascist nation.

And why would you think I'm downplaying the al qaeda threat, by using the most accurate term to describe them? - Theocrats.

Our nations founders considered theocrats and theocracy to the the most dangerous threat to our nation. Our very FIRST right, in the Bill of Rights, is a guarantee against theocracy.

Loony authoritarian theocrats are most certainly a threat to our nation. Whether foreign or domestic.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Does he? I thought he was playing a bit of devil's advocate there. His point was, I thought, that the etymology of the term is defensible, not that the term is useful.

For the record, I disagree with him on even the formal point. It requires an extremely loose, colloquial definition of "fascism" in order to work.
Click to expand...

I thought he was playing a bit of devil's advocate there. His point was, I thought, that the etymology of the term is defensible, not that the term is useful.

Right. That's why I told Damo he was "shoehorning" a theocratic group into the formal definition of fascisism. By ignoring some elements of the formal definitions and historical context of fascism, you could lump all authoritiarians under the word "fascism".
 
Cypress said:
I thought he was playing a bit of devil's advocate there. His point was, I thought, that the etymology of the term is defensible, not that the term is useful.

Right. That's why I told Damo he was "shoehorning" a theocratic group into the formal definition of fascisism. By ignoring some elements of the formal definitions and historical context of fascism, you could lump all authoritiarians under the word "fascism".
Click to expand...
No, that is why "islamo" begins it. You are shoehorning the new word into some odd thing that is supposed to mean exactly something else...

This word is not supposed to mean exactly the same thing as fascism. Hence the conglomeration. It takes parts from each of the groups and puts it in the new definition.
 
bob said:
i also agree.. what about the term WMD ?
Click to expand...
Good example! It's a ridiculously fuzzy term.

"Weapons of Mass Destruction." Great, but what constitutes "mass destruction?" Most strategists do NOT consider chemical weapons strategic weapons, or WMD. The effect of chemical weapons, while horrific, tends to be localized. Ditto for the infamous-thanks-to-the-media "dirty bomb." Neither are most biological agents, since most weaponized microbes are made to be non-contagious.

Yet if we take the colloquial definition, which does indeed include chemical and biological weapons, then we'd have to also include many weapons that are commonly considered conventional. Say, the largest FAE bombs, for example.
 
Damocles said:
No, that is why "islamo" begins it. You are shoehorning the new word into some odd thing that is supposed to mean exactly something else...

This word is not supposed to mean exactly the same thing as fascism. Hence the conglomeration. It takes parts from each of the groups and puts it in the new definition.
Click to expand...


Nice comeback ... wish I thought of it ... but I'll get on Cypress' nerves by saying .. ditto ... :pke:
 
This word is not supposed to mean exactly the same thing as fascism. Hence the conglomeration. It takes parts from each of the groups and puts it in the new definition.

A conglomeration should at least accurately best describe the entity it is symbolising.

If you are using the term fascism in your definition, then fascism must best describe the characteristics shown.

It doesn't. Theocratic is more accurate than fascism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top