On The Importance of Definition of Terms

AnyOldIron

AnyOldIron

Atheist Missionary
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?
 
Last edited:
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.....
 
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
 
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.
 
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....
 
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.
 
.

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."
 
.

for the record, I exclude Damocles from the category of bush puppet.

Inexplicably, he likes this word islamofascist.
 
klaatu said:
here is something to ponder .. Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a fascist?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

klaatu said:
Why the fuck do you keep bringing up Sean Hannity to me? Do I throw Al Franken into every discussion we have?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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 said:
for the record, I exclude Damocles from the category of bush puppet.

Inexplicably, he likes this word islamofascist.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
klaatu said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Damocles said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top