This is confused. I was pointing out a problem with the definition, not saying someone "should" be or do anything (other than change the definition). Bryan's definition has the same flaw.
Well, the analogy is about tainting by association. If Caplan's definition is flawed, it ought to be critiqued on its own merits, and not because some other distasteful entity also uses that definition.
This is like saying nobody should be a vegetarian (or love dogs) because Hitler was and did those things too.
This is confused. I was pointing out a problem with the definition, not saying someone "should" be or do anything (other than change the definition). Bryan's definition has the same flaw.
Well, the analogy is about tainting by association. If Caplan's definition is flawed, it ought to be critiqued on its own merits, and not because some other distasteful entity also uses that definition.