the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

I read arguments all the time where people are talking past one another, but most people don't think to ask, "Wait. What exactly do you mean by X?" Almost every argument is ultimately about how we understand the words we use. We'd all do ourselves a lot more favors if we just went straight to "OK--define that" as soon as we discovered we disagreed. 

The problem, though, comes up when people decide to dictate what language means. 

It doesn't work that way. I mean, you can dictate all you like, but any given word means what most people think it means. You don't decide that "desk" will mean "two-legged flightless bird ridden by Aborigonies" and expect the rest of the world to buy into it. Language simply doesn't work that way. 

Dictating what X means is just as ignorant as jumping off a building because you have decided to dictate how gravity works. Gravity has a way of deciding for itself how it will and will not work. Maybe you've noticed. 

Further, you don't get to find a word with ten definitions and decide that only one of them is "valid." The rest of the world will ignore you, because no one died and made you god. 

The Church of Christ does this. I daresay they're notorious for it. They don't say, for example, "I'm going to church," because that implies that the church is a building as opposed to the group of worshippers who gather there. But see..."church" means both. It's ok if you don't want to use the term "church" to refer to the building, but when you feel obliged to tell me the word doesn't refer to the building (ever), you've just stepped over the line from "harmless theist" to "ignorant asswaffle." 

I'd like to make a distinction here, though. There are many points in good arguments where the participants narrowly define their terms up front. This is not done in order to prove others wrong (as with my "America is not a democracy!" friend), but in order to clarify what each person means to reduce misunderstandings as the discussion unfolds. This is a good thing. 

I've also seen people argue for why a word needs to have a more limited definition. That's fine, too. You're kinda pissing into the wind with that approach, but hey. It's a legitimate battle, at least. 

What is pointless (aka, stupid) is insisting that your word ("democracy," in this case) means something it clearly doesn't in the modern mind. And I don't care if it used to mean that. 

Let me say this again: I don't care what the word meant in obsolete usage. Words evolve. Living languages cannot help themselves that way. You don't still use the words "thee" and "thou" unless you're talking to a god (and god knows why you use them then; do they sound more holy?). The word "awful" no longer means "awesome," and the word "terrible" no longer means "terrific." A "hussy" is no longer a "housewife." You accept that these words have shifted meaning since they were spawned. So why insist that your word must still mean (to everyone!) what cavemen meant by it? 

Because you have no life and need a dead horse to beat. 

I'll save you the trouble and just give you mine. I'm done with it. 

d