Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Binkie The Clown

(7,911 posts)
21. Consult a textbook on linguistics.
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 02:12 AM
Jan 2016

Words mean what they are generally agreed upon to mean. You prefer a narrow, less generally accepted definition. Fine. Your choice. But your religion isn't the one and only true religion, and your definition isn't the one and only sanctified true definition. Many dictionaries, online and print, have already established that the generally accepted definition is far less narrow than your preferred definition. That's fine. You are entitled to your own idiolect, just as I am entitled to prefer the generally accepted meaning. Your mistake is in trying to force me to conform to your idiolect. That's all I'm saying. Either you accept the generally accepted meaning of a word, or you define that word differently in your idiolect for ideological reasons. That makes you akin to a fundamentalist, adhering to the narrowest of interpretations as handed down by some "authority" and rejecting the generally agreed upon meaning.

I'm glad we did finally settle that.

So we both conform to some norm. It's just that your norm and mine are different subsets of the English speaking world. You define it the way your in-group defines it and I will define it the way the rest of the world defines it. And that truly does settle it. And, to be honest, I have nothing more to say on the subject. Either you believe in dictionaries or you don't. If you don't, I can't convince you they are real.

Humans who eat other mammals are one Warren Stupidity Dec 2015 #1
I wouldn't go that far. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #5
And what if they do? 2naSalit Dec 2015 #2
I agree. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #4
Frankly, my being a vegan has nothing to do with animal cruelty. Binkie The Clown Dec 2015 #3
And that's perfectly fine, Binkie. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #6
Then you are not considered vegan. chernabog Dec 2015 #10
Ah, the famous "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Binkie The Clown Dec 2015 #11
So you're just gonna assume chernabog Dec 2015 #12
Let me see. Miriam Webster, respected authority vs a complete stranger's own definition... Binkie The Clown Dec 2015 #13
Im just saying chernabog Dec 2015 #14
Websters, and most of the other authorities are just saying: yes it is. n/t end of discussion. Binkie The Clown Dec 2015 #15
As the word was coined in living memory and the first printed usage is available, we know the answer LeftyMom Jan 2016 #18
Terrific is horrible! Binkie The Clown Jan 2016 #19
God bless, but doesn't know shit all what he/she/it is talking about. flvegan Jan 2016 #20
Consult a textbook on linguistics. Binkie The Clown Jan 2016 #21
Settled nothing. You're wrong. flvegan Jan 2016 #22
I'm not wrong and you're not wrong. You are a prescripitivist and and I am a descriptivist. Binkie The Clown Jan 2016 #23
So, are we done here? flvegan Jan 2016 #24
Yes. Done. You still don't get it, and I'm through trying to explain it to you. n/t Binkie The Clown Jan 2016 #25
Awesome! *wipes hands* flvegan Jan 2016 #26
Health Vegan. PyaarRevolution Dec 2015 #16
I'm a vegan and I happily roasted a turkey for the Family Christmas gathering. Binkie The Clown Dec 2015 #17
The first time those words were LiberalElite Dec 2015 #7
Im glad you made the right decision, LE! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #8
I was leaning that way then LiberalElite Dec 2015 #9
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Vegetarian, Vegan and Animal Rights»Do Vegans Care More About...»Reply #21