• NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Okay, well since you like being pedantic and hiding behind semantics here is the Oxford definition.

    You can spend all day yelling at them.

    I have called you out on your what i will assume is misinformation instead of disinformation.

    It’s your move, do you argue against the factual definition?

    • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      First you didn’t not include a definition. Second, dictionaries aren’t authoritative sources but rather descriptive ones. If you need that explained to you then you are ill equipped for any academic discussion.

      • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are right I did forget here you go.

        Dictionary
        Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
        ter·ror·ist
        noun
        a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
        “four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists”
        Similar:
        bomber
        arsonist
        incendiary
        gunman
        assassin
        desperado
        hijacker
        revolutionary
        radical
        guerrilla
        urban guerrilla
        subversive
        anarchist
        freedom fighter
        insurrectionist
        insurrectionary
        adjective
        unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
        “a terrorist organization”

        • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’ll note nowhere on that list of synonyms are terms used for militaries. That’s not by accident. It’s because national militaries aren’t terrorist groups.

      • TheBeege@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Correct. There is no authority in language except French. So your pedantic arguments are also flawed. Your own argument works against you

        • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is also ones for other languages.

          Regardless the point is a dictionary does not define words but rather describes how they are used. Even if it covered national militaries, which it does not, it wouldn’t support your claim. In fact it would be an “appeal to authority”

          • TheBeege@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your reference to academic debate in a previous comment is hilarious. Academics know how to stay on topic.

            The original comment you replied to was referencing Israel’s behavior as terroristic. You provided a counter argument that nation states cannot conduct terrorism based on the definition of the term terrorism. When provided with evidence supporting the opposing claim, you say the evidence is not valid because it is not authoritative. You then say there is no authoritative source for such evidence. You then use a classic goal post argument method of saying, “even if your argument is invalid, that doesn’t work because x,” rather than focusing on the original argument. You also misuse appeal to authority. Appeal to authority as a fallacy is only a fallacy when the item in question isn’t explicitly defined by that authority. When you moved the goal post, you operated under the assumption of your continued argument that dictionaries are authoritative. However, your language is imprecise enough that you’re going to claim you didn’t make that assumption.

            That is not proper academic debate method. That is political debate method. This is the kind of shit that makes it difficult to make meaningful progress today. But hey, since we’re not doing proper academic debate anyway, I’ll indulge in some ad hominem. You’re a terrible person for trying to confound a serious issue with irrelevant pedantic arguments and arguments in bad faith. Fuck off. No one cares if “terrorism” - as defined by you as some authority on words - can be applied to nation states. A nation state committed an act meant to cause terror in civilians (in order to take their land). People understood that as the intent, which is the purpose of words anyway.