Definitions

A definition is not a sacred thing.  It is, though, a touchstone upon which disagreements can be adjudicated.  There are those who would like me to quit quoting definitions.  They somehow seem to think that a word can mean whatever they want it to mean and if it doesn't exactly fit, well, too bad.

Let us imagine a world where that is the norm.  Where if I call you a "racist pig" I don't have to mean what you think the term means.  In that world the phrase, "racist pig" can mean "nice guy" to me and  something else to you.  In which case the defense for slander would be "when I called you a 'racist pig' I meant "nice guy."  After which everybody breaths better because obviously "racist pig' could mean exactly whatever I want it to mean.

Or perhaps, you call me a "racist pig" and you believe that it means "nice guy."  How clever.  Now I can't legally declare that you have slandered me because a word can mean whatever you want...right?  But I can send my armies.    And if I destroy all your cities and run you out of the game have I proved that the phrase "racist pig" cannot mean "nice guy?" Of course not.  Silencing the debate ends the debate and no conclusions can be drawn.

So how do we avoid the scenarios described here?  How do we decide what a word means when it's in dispute.  Ahhh...you got it!  We use the dictionary.  In formal debate a debater who does not have reasonable support for key terms -- reasonable support meaning authoritative definitions -- is usually at a great disadvantage.

In the end then, I will continue to quote and use definitions from authoritative sources.  If you are wise you too will stop denigrating their use as it seems pretty silly to me for you to be arguing with Webster.  I think he has more clout in the realm definitions than you.

AJ

Miss Piggy on "Why I am a Feminist Pig"  http://time.com/3908787/miss-piggy-feminist/