### Creative Semantical Tactics

Is it a reasonable strategy to change the definition of words so they favor your position? Or to create new words to vilify ideological opponents?

It doesn't seem like a good strategy to ignore them as if they were merely poor grammatical choices. Yet, to even acknowledge such words and definitions surrenders much ground in a discussion. And if you do ignore such grammatical creative license, eventually people are talking past each other.

After awhile, your just arguing about grammar rather than ideas. Who wants that?

I once had an argument with an atheist about the definition of atheism, that dragged on so long, we spent less time and energy discussing the bigger issue. I was using the definition that can only be found now in old paperback dictionaries with yellow ragged covers and yellowed pages. He was using one that was online and might change while you were reading it.

It's hard to argue, and sometimes to even comprehend a point with such a moving target as semantical drift. It's not even a drift anymore, it's a tsunami, and eventually we'll all be back at Babel wondering what the hell is going on.

That's all I have to say about that this morning.