Psy: A dictionary can never make for an ending point to a discussion, not a constructive one anyway.
NS: This is a statement making a pretense at being universal, "never," and then admitting to the broad area of exception, "non-constructive."
So, I will take the above to mean that, 'yes, many discussions can be quickly resolved by the simple expediant of consulting a dictionary.'
Psy: I told you precisely how it can be done earlier. Perhaps you weren't listening?
NS: I must have had my nonsense filter turned on full.
Your 'cheesy' example tends to make my case for me. Rather than using a standardized dictionary, the participants simply decided to publicly pronounce their own definitions, rather than keeping them private. IOW, they created a limited, and momentary, dictionary.
Let's say in our discussion that you define an 'abortion' as the ending of a zygote's life, and ALA defines it as ending a fetus's, while I define it as ending an embro's. If none of us bothers to share these private definitions, how do you suppose this discussion (i.e. 'does a morning after pill constitute and abortion') would prosper? If we borrow from your cheese example, we could agree to accept each's personal definition, but that would mean there would be no resolution = end of discussion. OR, we could resort to using an authoritative, and neutral, source, e.g. a dictionary. Heck, why not sign on to using the same definitions as the rest of the English speaking world, or is that just too confining?
Psy: Your analogy to chess, is flimsy, at best.
NS: The idea that language is a game, requiring public, agreed upon rules, much like any other game such as chess, is not philosophically flimsy. I wish it were of my own origination, but alas I borrowed it from that flimsest of all philosophers, L. Wittgenstein. This is not say that he has decreed what language is, and that we all must bow to it. But, if you find it faulty, as with any reasonable position, you must counter it with a well reasoned argument of your own; never just dismiss it in some god-like manner. That sort of conduct is unworthy of you, of all people.
Psy: A signpost pointing east does not point to the same place as another signpost that points east, if it is 20 miles north.
NS: What concern have I where others' define the compass locations? I make up my own private directions, and thus have redefined North America as South America, and visa versa. I'm thinking of making Britain a continent, and Asia a small island; screw "authoritative charlatans".
