[BanditFlyer]

Firstly, I'd like to voice my objection to long posts.

Now that we have that out of the way ....

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

So concludes my first argument: words are malleable. They are infinitely malleable. And if something is so malleable, how can it have a fixed definition?

Does it need] a fixed definition to be usefull?

Coming at this from a background in computer programming, I'd say no. Certain words are deprecated, no longer in use, have different meanings in different usages, etc, but they are still eminently useful. And you MUST know the definition in order to be able to use them effectively.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

This is my second argument: dictionaries are unreliable, because they are written by people.

Toyotas are designed by people. Are they unreliable? That's a weak argument if ever there was one.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

And that is my third argument: definitions must be agreed upon for words to be useful.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I refer to this as a shared culture. Two people share the same culture when they use the same word in the same manner.

I disagree (with your usage of the word "culture").

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

So, hopefully, using my three arguments, I've shown that there's a need to agree on definitions when opening into a discussion. This is something that philosophers and scientists are constantly doing. In science, they do it at the beginning of their papers, explaining what they're measuring and how and why. In philosophy, they're establishing what they're talking about as a premise.

I both agree and disagree.

I agree that there's a need to agree on definitions when opening a discussion, but I disagree with some of the points in your arguments.