I distinctly recall telling you that I didn't see a difference between them.
... and you distinctly recall never having asked me.
Many words have more than one definition.
Nope. No English words have a definition. All have wide-ranging descriptions, though.
I imagine most if not all of them didn't start that way.
All did.
Some definitions increase in popularity,
Is there more than one? If so, it's not the definition.
I don't see any of this 'must be forthwith adhered',
Obviously not for descriptions that are not definitions. This should be another clue for you.
especially not when talking informally with people.
... which is why they are simply descriptions to aid in usage.
... but to get into a dictionary, there generally has to be a pretty established base of people using the definitions contained therein.
Error. To get into a dictionary, the owner of the dictionary website simply has to decide to put it in his dictionary. I shouldn't have to tell you this.
Only if we're dealing with things like programming, engineering and the law.
Do you mean to say that it only applies in communication that has bearing on society?
Regular conversations don't have such strict rules.
The less bearing it has on society, the fewer the rules. In fact, there are no rules and no definitions applied to those who are raving incoherently.
... it becomes a problem when people have different views on things, such as on whether pregnant women should be allowed to have voluntary abortions.
So, you are saying that rules and definitions become a problem when they reveal your indefensible position for what it is, e.g. when it exposes your support for a subset of contract killings, yes?
This is when dictionary or encyclopedia definitions -can- be a lifesaver
Not when the dictionary or excyclopedia errors are providing one with the dishonesty necessary to disguise one's indefensible positions.
, so long as both parties in a debate agree to use definitions found therein.
... which explains why you balk at accepting even obvious and straightforward definitions.
people can and do have multiple definitions for the same words.
Nope, then it is not the definition.
Again with this notion that only one definition can apply to a word in informal conversations.
A word can have various meanings, but once it is defined, it is defined. If that same word is then redefined, it takes on the new definition and shirks the old one.
This simply isn't the case.
It is absolutely the case. No word can have more than one "The Defintion".
I decided to take a look on the legal definition(s) for abortion.
Since we are talking about "contract killing", why do you support it?
