[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
If you are going to try and argue against "my definition" of faith (which isn't mine, it is a reflection of what faith really means),

How do you know you are the one with the "real" meaning, especially as there is someone sitting there contradicting you, and you claim not to use a dictionary, instead apparently relying solely on your own authority in the matter, and seeming to assume that your authority will be recognized.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
you have to argue against it directly, not continue using the term in improper manners. And saying "nah uh, you're wrong!" is in no way shape or form a counter-argument.

Curious - you seem to be primarily doing the "nah uh, you're wrong!" bit too:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You still need to learn what faith really is. You are using it inappropriately in this context.

You just contradict him - no reason given;

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I define faith correctly.

Agin - you just assert that you are correct; no reason given;

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I never used a dictionary. In fact, my "definitions" are the complex extended ones, not dictionary ones. And, words have specific, universal meanings. They are not dependant upon the speaker.

Here, you just declare that your definitions are the right type, and that there is no speaker dependence, which would imply that you are the prescriptivist in the argument.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Sigh. That applies in limited scope to words that are only in certain regional dialects, yes. But, complex words do not change drastically in meaning from one region to another. And even if the word is used in a slightly different manner, that is immaterial; it is the concepts that matter. You are not understanding the concepts of the various forms of faith. You are only able to make your argument because you are using the wrong meanings of the word faith in the wrong context. If you refuse to even listen to my arguments instead of just brush them aside as you are currently doing (no counter-argument has been made at all), then there is little point in discussing this with you.

Why should he post a conter argument when all you have been doing is contradicting him, and not arguing yourself? You just keep repeating that he has the "wrong" definition, that Narf is "not understanding the concepts" and that you're right. Nowhere have I seen a rational argument for this (in this thread "arguing" against Narf, anyway); you seem to just keep restating your own belief that you are right. At best, you define what you mean by faith. You aren't arguing either.

Please, contradict me on this. Quote yourself where you were actually giving evidence or showing logic in the Last few pages of this thread in the segment where you are talking to Narf about faith, and explain how that was evidence or logic; all I see you doing is contradicting Narf flat out, except for that one little spot where you define what you mean by faith.

It would appear that your argument with Narf is essentially the argument that can happen between any two people, one of whom has a descriptivist approach to language and one of whom has a prescriptivist approach to language. The descriptivist is confident in their own position because language is a flexible thing, and they are sure they are using the definition the majority of people are using, and so are correct. The prescriptivist is confident in their own position becuase language is an inflexible thing, and they are sure they are using the correct definition.