On "Entrapment" & "Islamo-phobia": Parts of the problem

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Is the use–or misuse–of the legal term ‘entrapment’ following a similar course as the psychiatric term ‘phobia’?

In the world that I have known, Judges adjudicate accusations of entrapment and Psychiatrists diagnose cases of phobia; though the “court of public opinion” concludes perpetually on all things, big and small.

[size=125]Part Of The Problem[/size]

This is not the first time that I’ve written the following about such misuse of language:

Anyone who misuses such important words AND DOES NOT QUALIFY THE MISUSE is part of the problem! This includes anyone who believes, for example, that ‘islamophobia’ is one such misused word, but [i]uses it, nonetheless, and without stating that it is misused and the nature of the error;

AND

does not object strenuously when he or she is a witness of the misuse.[/i]

My reason is that there will never be a reversal and correction of the error while civil society is permitted to carry on in implicit agreement of the terms.

Does anyone understand what I mean?

For example: If I were invited to participate on a discussion panel about “Islamophobia”, then I would accept the invitation, but I would not permit the discussion to acknowledge implicitly that the word is valid; requiring that the discussion be stalled on the definition of ‘Islamophobia’.

Upon concluding that I had everyone’s attention, I would state simply that anyone who permits use of the word is part of the problem–INCLUDING THE “PROBLEM” THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED, WHATEVER IT MAY BE CALLED!!

[size=125]Entrapment Of Misuser Of ‘Phobia’[/size]

To where does a discussion go when one refuses to misuse ‘phobia’? I can only predict.

Indignation and any other emotions aside: Those in support of the misuse may argue that, indeed, the phenomenon that is being discussed is NOT a rational fear.

To this I would respond that the phobia in question does not appear in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and that I am now ready to discuss what new term that may be adopted in replacement of the erroneous ‘islamophobia’; that I will entertain a discussion of the word ‘irrational’, if you wish, and ‘fear’, again, if you wish–both individually.

For example, if you wish to discuss the rationality of the enhanced fear of violent death in the years following September 11, 2001 of American citizens living within fifty miles of New York City, then I am willing.

For what it’s worth, a legal definition of entrapment.
.

2

You’re correct, “islamophobia” isn’t defined by the DSMMD,4, RT; however, phobia is. Since English has roots in the Germanic languages, I don’t find it surprising that the portmanteau word, ‘islamophobia’ was created to specify a particular ‘irrational fear.’

Then you’d be wasting the panel’s time, since most people who use the label believe it means a ‘fear of Islam.’ (Definition is consensus.) What isn’t clear in that definition is if Islam means the religion, the way of life, or the behavior of extremist Islamists. Getting rid of that ambiguity give focus to the panel discussion. I don’t think there’s another word for the irrational fear of any of those three, unless it’s an irrational fear of religion, but that’s very broad–as is fear of death at the hands of terrorists.

Finally, legal entrapment wouldn’t seem applicable since no government law enforcement agency is compelling anyone to use the term and no crime is committed if the term is used. So what’s your point?

3

I think some background would be in order. This OP is lacking context:

How do people use the term ‘Islamo-phobia’?
In what way is it incorrect?
What is the correct meaning of the term?

And what do you meany by “anyone who permits use is part of the problem”?
Which problem?
Do you mean to say that anybody who permits misuse of, for example, Islamophobia is part of the problem of people being afraid of muslims?
Or part of the problem of people misusing Islamophobia?

4

“Portmanteau” contradicts particular specificity. I was referring to the “portmanteau” employment of ‘islamophobia’; and when I invoked the personal experience of those “American citizens living within fifty miles of New York City”, I was asserting unequivocally that their fears–on all levels above pathology, phobia–are rational.

I you were to ask me about those American citizens who fall outside my defined set, I would have to consider which of them live in, for example, Los Angeles or Washington, D.C. and so on. I expect that I would not find many with irrational fears.

To disqualify objections or questions about the definition of a term for the reason that “[M]ost people who use the label believe it means…” is precisely definition by consensus. Would you adopt an opinion by no other method than consensus? You would not do such a thing and you would become dangerous (to me) if you required that I do such a thing.