PDA

View Full Version : On The Importance of Definition of Terms



AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 04:18 AM
One of the greatest gifts Socrates left humanity is the Socratic method, and the most vital element of this is the need for definition.

Without the use of exact definition we lapse into sophism, terminology becomes ambigious and this allows logical fallacy to arise.

When we set a definition for a term, and if the term is then used based on contemporary rhetorical connotations of the term, we are on thin ice.

The repercussions of allowing Socratic definition to slip are elequently described by George Orwell in 1984 with Newspeak.

Does anyone disagree?

maineman
08-16-2006, 05:34 AM
I agree wholeheartedly.... islamofascist...socialist... cases in point.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 05:53 AM
I agree wholeheartedly.... islamofascist...socialist... cases in point.

Exactly. Times of tension are always boom-times for sophism. Rhetoric wins over logos and this is incidious.....

Care4all
08-16-2006, 06:05 AM
I think that you may have been guilty of this yourself Anyold...at least in my opinion, when you REDEFINE the interpretation and meaning of terrorism....

Just as the republicans tried to do such with the word "terrorized" when Kerry used it....

imho

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 06:19 AM
think that you may have been guilty of this yourself Anyold...at least in my opinion, when you REDEFINE the interpretation and meaning of terrorism....

I use the commonly agreed definition:

"The targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure with the aim of producing political change through intimidation."

Applying that definition without discrimination isn't redefining.

If an entity's acts fit that description then they are deemed to be committing terrorism.

Care4all
08-16-2006, 07:32 AM
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...

To me, terrorism is the intentional act, intentional decision, to TARGET an innocent crowd of people at a mosque for example, and who are only there to worship God, and blow them up in to smitherines, for no apparent reason at all?

Terrorism does not involve dropping flyers to warn the innocent to get out now....we are going after the enemy and you are sure to be injured if you stay....

That still is not to say that Israel was just with their actions of what they consider self defense....in killing all of those people who did not leave what they know as HOME....that to me is on the line of a war crime...

And maybe both are equally AS BAD, I am really not arguing that....but both should not be described as the same because they are NOT the same...and as I said, at least not to me....

klaatu
08-16-2006, 08:05 AM
This all boils down to critiqing the methods of War and Defense. I hear a lot of criticism coming from the left on the actions of the West and the fight against terrorism, but what I dont hear is viable alternative solutions.
Anyold ... you spend a lot of time flaming Israel ... but what I dont hear from you and your political ilk.. is viable alternatives. Sure... Discussion and negotiations are a starting point .. but has it worked in the past? Are the (and I'll use your terminology) "Freedom *choke* fighters" capable of honest Negotiation? Isnt it in their heart to destroy the Nation that is Israel?
How many different words does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have to use to tell you that the main objective is to obliterate Israel? How do you begin to negotiate with this mentality?
In todays world the point isnt does Israel deserve to exist.. because she does and there is no turing back unless you want to do to her what you claim to abhor.
As a pacifest .. and believe it or not I am one ... I believe the alternative is to campaign from the ground up ... the only solution is for the people to take charge of their destiny.

The only solution is for the people to demand of their leadership what is rightfully ours, A peaceful world where we all co exist. Wishful unobtainable thinking you say? Thats it in a nut shell! You dont believe it is obtainable but you continue to post here flaming the methods of the west ...
So..what are negotiations all about..? An attempt to negotiate an end to a dissagreement by ways of peaceful methods. But they have continued to fail.... why is that? Because the people who continue to be oppressed are easily motivated into terrorism ... so the seeds must be planted in that garden.

Cypress
08-16-2006, 08:29 AM
Dixie already admitted why a handful of Bush puppets on this board, and on Fox News use the word "islamo-fascists....they use it for propaganda purposes, and marketing the war on terror:

DIXIE, on the word "islamofascit":

"Well, propaganda seems to be the order of the day with you people, so you shouldn't mind a little of it thrown back in your face now and then, should you?...The purpose of calling it Islamofascism, is to denote the specificity of the evil we are facing and the special nature of the enemy we are at war with."

Cypress
08-16-2006, 08:30 AM
for the record, I exclude Damocles from the category of bush puppet.

Inexplicably, he likes this word islamofascist.

klaatu
08-16-2006, 08:36 AM
for the record, I exclude Damocles from the category of bush puppet.

Inexplicably, he likes this word islamofascist.


here is something to ponder .. Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a fascist?

Cypress
08-16-2006, 08:40 AM
here is something to ponder .. Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a fascist?

The iranian governemnt has been called a theocracy from 1979-2004. By our government, and every other world government. He's an authortitarian theocrat.

Its a theocracy. Belated attempts by Sean Hannity to redefine formal words, is mere jerking-off.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 08:40 AM
here is something to ponder .. Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a fascist?

Does he fit the defining criteria?

klaatu
08-16-2006, 08:42 AM
The iranian governemnt has been called a theocracy from 1979-2004. By our government, and every other world government. He's an authortitarian theocrat.

Its a theocracy. Belated attempts by Sean Hannity to redefine formal words, is mere jerking-off.


Why the fuck do you keep bringing up Sean Hannity to me? Do I throw Al Franken into every discussion we have?

Cypress
08-16-2006, 08:47 AM
Why the fuck do you keep bringing up Sean Hannity to me? Do I throw Al Franken into every discussion we have?

Because its Fox News that has been promoting the term "islamo fascism". No one else in the entire world is. Not non-partisan middle east experts. Not non partisan foreign policy experts. Not other foreign governments.

Dixie's just taking his talking points from Fox. He didn't come up with this term on his own.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 08:59 AM
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.

klaatu
08-16-2006, 09:18 AM
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.

OrnotBitwise
08-16-2006, 09:30 AM
for the record, I exclude Damocles from the category of bush puppet.

Inexplicably, he likes this word islamofascist.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.

Damocles
08-16-2006, 09:32 AM
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.


Exactly...



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.

Except the definition I am using comes from the actual dictionary... Otherwise I might agree. Also I do not believe that overly-strict definitions are necessary when creating a colloquialism.. But in this case even with the strict definitions the etymology is defensible.

I did say earlier in the conversation that I don't think that Bush should use the term... I am not arguing that leaders should use the newest colloquialisms when speaking to the world...

OrnotBitwise
08-16-2006, 09:38 AM
This all boils down to critiqing the methods of War and Defense. I hear a lot of criticism coming from the left on the actions of the West and the fight against terrorism, but what I dont hear is viable alternative solutions.And you postulate that there *must* exist military solutions? I don't. It's entirely possible that there are no military solutions.

Anyold ... you spend a lot of time flaming Israel ... but what I dont hear from you and your political ilk.. is viable alternatives. Sure... Discussion and negotiations are a starting point .. but has it worked in the past?
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.

Are the (and I'll use your terminology) "Freedom *choke* fighters" capable of honest Negotiation? Isnt it in their heart to destroy the Nation that is Israel?
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.

How many different words does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have to use to tell you that the main objective is to obliterate Israel? How do you begin to negotiate with this mentality?
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.

In todays world the point isnt does Israel deserve to exist.. because she does and there is no turing back unless you want to do to her what you claim to abhor.
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.

OrnotBitwise
08-16-2006, 09:46 AM
Exactly...



Except the definition I am using comes from the actual dictionary... Otherwise I might agree. Also I do not believe that overly-strict definitions are necessary when creating a colloquialism.. But in this case even with the strict definitions the etymology is defensible.

I did say earlier in the conversation that I don't think that Bush should use the term... I am not arguing that leaders should use the newest colloquialisms when speaking to the world...
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.

Damocles
08-16-2006, 09:50 AM
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.
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.

OrnotBitwise
08-16-2006, 09:56 AM
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.
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:

Damocles
08-16-2006, 09:58 AM
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....

Care4all
08-16-2006, 10:05 AM
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.

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

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 10:08 AM
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?

Cypress
08-16-2006, 10:10 AM
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.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 10:10 AM
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?

klaatu
08-16-2006, 10:22 AM
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.




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.

Damocles
08-16-2006, 10:34 AM
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.
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.

Care4all
08-16-2006, 10:37 AM
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?



You need to answer first all of my questions, since I asked first....! :D

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-16-2006, 11:02 AM
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.

bob
08-16-2006, 11:27 AM
I agree wholeheartedly.... islamofascist...socialist... cases in point.


i also agree.. what about the term WMD ?

Cypress
08-16-2006, 11:42 AM
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.

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.

Cypress
08-16-2006, 11:50 AM
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.

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".

Damocles
08-16-2006, 11:53 AM
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".
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.

OrnotBitwise
08-16-2006, 11:53 AM
i also agree.. what about the term WMD ?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
08-16-2006, 11:55 AM
Chemical weapons are not effective enough to be considered WMD, IMO...

bob
08-16-2006, 12:17 PM
how about the term "educated"

klaatu
08-16-2006, 01:39 PM
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.


Nice comeback ... wish I thought of it ... but I'll get on Cypress' nerves by saying .. ditto ... :pke:

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 04:03 AM
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.

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 04:06 AM
Hence the conglomeration. It takes parts from each of the groups and puts it in the new definition.

It takes elements from fascism that also describe other ideologies and ignores the element that differentiates fascism from them....

It also ignores that a term already exists that very accurately describes them without having to ignore elements to make it fit.

Theocracy.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 06:20 AM
See again the misnomer thread, there is no reason other than avoidance to keep making threads about this AOI.

Annie
08-17-2006, 06:39 PM
So have you asked the UN to get around to defining 'terrorism', you know, so that everyone can be on board?

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 02:31 AM
See again the misnomer thread, there is no reason other than avoidance to keep making threads about this AOI.

They are on two different topics. The misnomer is on the topic of the term 'islamofascism' and this is on the topic of the importance of definition of terms to political and philosophical debate.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 06:17 AM
See again the misnomer thread, there is no reason other than avoidance to keep making threads about this AOI.

They are on two different topics. The misnomer is on the topic of the term 'islamofascism' and this is on the topic of the importance of definition of terms to political and philosophical debate.
Except it centers specifically on that particular word....

If it is more general, then fine, let people talk about islamofascism in another thread.

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 06:37 AM
Except it centers specifically on that particular word....

If it is more general, then fine, let people talk about islamofascism in another thread.

It is a general thread, some people talking about the definition of socialism, some of terrorism and some of Islamofascism.

It wasn't intended to be specifically about IF, just the importance of definition. Our conversations over the last few days have demonstrated that importance.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 06:53 AM
Rubbish. This places way too much importance on our dialogue here. We use sophistry to have fun.

This is not important when it comes right down to it. Who is caring enough to take part in this discussion? Is it the voters who will actually make a difference or is it sophists here on a lark using big words to fundamentally show off to each other who is the bigger wordsmith?