|
Post by Julian on Oct 27, 2010 4:14:53 GMT -5
You can't go around calling people motherfuckers and then point to the fact that they regularly have sex with a woman who has children and say they're motherfuckers "by definition". The term has implications that are not a part of the definition. So while you could argue it's technically correct, the idea the person hearing gets and the reality don't match. It can be used as a version of the fallacy of equivocation. Ummm, motherfucker is an Oepdial thing - it's someone who fucks their own mother. Yes, Osama took terrorism to another level, particularly for Americans, but redefining motherfucker in that way, is like then calling all Saudis terrorists, as opposed to calling all people who are involved in incest motherfuckers. There's varying degrees of being a motherfucker - Oedipal being the lighter end of the scale. Ecoterrorism is still terrorism[[[[, they just haven't quite worked out how to get the suicide bombers on board yet...]]]]
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 27, 2010 4:41:45 GMT -5
Terrorism is a very emotionally charged word right now, it's not a coincidence it's used as a buzzword. And the connotations are of the "Al-Qaeda" kind. Describing something on the scale of Plowshares as terrorism may fit the definition, but implies acts on the level of killing people. A definition that doesn't match what is usually understood by the word is a bad definition. Bad definitions allow for bad arguments and create confusion. Well then that's all the more reason to educate people that terrorism is not restricted to Muslim wackjobs. I see no reason as to why bending to the whims of a few over-emotional idiots and re-defining the word would be preferrable.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Oct 27, 2010 16:24:51 GMT -5
Terrorism is a very emotionally charged word right now, it's not a coincidence it's used as a buzzword. And the connotations are of the "Al-Qaeda" kind. Describing something on the scale of Plowshares as terrorism may fit the definition, but implies acts on the level of killing people. A definition that doesn't match what is usually understood by the word is a bad definition. Bad definitions allow for bad arguments and create confusion. Well then that's all the more reason to educate people that terrorism is not restricted to Muslim wackjobs. I see no reason as to why bending to the whims of a few over-emotional idiots and re-defining the word would be preferrable. Because it's more likely to work, perhaps? Because definitions are a matter of common usage, not handed down from the Dictionary Gods? It's not "a few over-emotional idiots", it's pretty decent number of people. How many people, would you say, would look at the Plowshares movement and say "yep, that's terrorism"? If less than half, then there's something wrong with the definition of terrorism. If education works, great, let's go with that. If not, though, then the definition of terrorism has changed. Julian: It's just an example, pretend it's taking place in a parallel universe where motherfucker means fucker of any mother in addition to keeping the usual connotations. I'd choose another example but I'm lazy.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 27, 2010 17:53:41 GMT -5
Well then that's all the more reason to educate people that terrorism is not restricted to Muslim wackjobs. I see no reason as to why bending to the whims of a few over-emotional idiots and re-defining the word would be preferrable. Because it's more likely to work, perhaps? Because definitions are a matter of common usage, not handed down from the Dictionary Gods? Well, if they can do that, then so can I. As such, I shall continue to refer to anything that uses fear as a coercion tool as "terrorism".
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Oct 27, 2010 19:37:29 GMT -5
This is old news. My mom saved an ad almost exactly like that one to show me examples of sexism in media so I would know what it looked like. PETA is like that Youtube girl who has a million subscribers who all watch to see her do crazy stunts, but ultimately do not care about her teenage wangst.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Oct 27, 2010 21:17:01 GMT -5
Because definitions are a matter of common usage, not handed down from the Dictionary Gods? Capricious Merriam, thou art brotherly; grant us thy revision. Mighty Webster, thou art compendious; bless us with thy spelling. Noble Samuel Johnson, thou art prescriptive; bestow upon us thy exactitude.
|
|