- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
You don't have to accept it, of course not. You can refuse to accept that 'gay' now means 'homosexual', but in doing so you make yourself look rather foolish. The origins of a word are always interesting, the current meaning of a word may indeed have changed somewhat between origin and modern usage. For example:See bold, plus I do not have to accept how a word has changed it meaning,
From: Online Etymological Dictionary.fundamentalist
coined 1920 in the religious sense (as is fundamentalism), from fundamental + -ist. Coined in Amer.Eng. to name a movement among Protestants c.1920-25 based on scriptural inerrancy, etc., and associated with William Jennings Bryan, among others.
Do you think that using the word fundamentalist is really only accurate when discussing protestant biblical inerrancy? Of course not. The meaning has changed, whether you or tohers accept that change or not. Had it not changed the term Islamic Fundamentalist would be entirely oxymoronic.
You see? You've just placed a modern definition on the word that does not relate directly to its origins. That's fine with me, even though I don't accept your new definition. You have every right not to accept the OED's definition of homophobia, but don't expect anyone else to accept your redefinitions of the lexicon with the same degree of respect that's accorded to the OED.No. These are vague terms, but fundamentalism is a reaction to modernism which adapts many of its aspects, it is very narrow, literal and concerned with rather rigid fundamentals.
Last edited: