on the re-defining of words

Dear Friends,

How often does one side in a debate accuse an other of re-defining what the words mean? Well, I have seen the unsupported accusations fly often enough to consider that should I ever have the opportunity to do so, I should in fact consider doing the very thing that detractors have accused, at least in one case, just for the experience …

Well, the opportunity has arisen[1], and I plan to take full advantage of it. Because of the recent de-commissioning of the word, I plan, by subjective fiat, to recycle it and use it in a new context:


1. in a religious discussion, having an unsavory, subjective character; as of a pro-religious argument eristically rejected on insufficient or inadequate secular grounds
2. in a religious discussion, the eristic approach of rejecting a stronger religious argument in preference for a weaker secular one because of bias, prejudice, hatred, or anti-religious sentiment
3, in a religious discussion, the rejection of a religious position in the absence of a competing secular alternative

There we go! I will be happy to wear the moniker of “term inventor” in the context of this new, shiny, spiffy word I have recreated and redefined.

[1] http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/germany/130603/germany-drops-its-longest-word , http://audioboo.fm/boos/1429201-how-to-say-rindfleischetikettierungsuberwachungsaufgabenubertragungsgesetz