You began a digression — S

First, it's not a digression. It's what I'm talking about.

There's a need because I don't consider that meaning. — Terrapin Station

You don't consider that (what that?) to be . . . what?

When someone says "Person P is using word W incorrectly" what that means is "Person P is using word W the way most people don't".

That's the meaning of that statement.

You can disagree with that i.e. you can think that that is not the meaning of that statement.

Okay, so then the convention is correct, no, and differing from the convention is incorrect? — Terrapin Station

I am not sure I know what it means to say that a convention is correct or incorrect.

You don't consider that (what that?) to be . . . what? — Magnus Anderson

Definitions/descriptions are different than meanings on my view. ("that meaning" was a shorthand way of saying "that to be meaning")

I am not sure I know what it means to say that a convention is correct or incorrect. — Magnus Anderson

You just said that what it "means" to say that word usage is correct/incorrect is that the word usage is the same as the convention/not the same as the convention.

So on your view, what it is to be correct (in this context, at least) is to be (the same as) the convention. Is that not right?

First, it's not a digression. It's what I'm talking about. — Terrapin Station

It's both. The digression can be traced back to this exchange between us. I clarified my position to you, and did not get a proper reply from you. I am still waiting for that reply.

Stop being difficult and answer the bloody question.

But then you're not just saying that the dictionary or conventional definition of "correct" is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth."
— Terrapin Station

Of course I'm not just saying that. Haven't you been listening? I'm saying that when that's what's meant, and when you interpret that meaning accordingly, then that's correct, that's successful communication. Why the hell is that so difficult for you to a) understand, and b) acknowledge? You haven't given any sensible response to that. — S

Also, here's more evidence that you're a bad listener. I said the following in that same post:

After they tell you, "I define 'correct' as 'a puppy,'" you're saying that the person needs to follow the convention.
— Terrapin Station

Only if they want to understand me! — S

And yet you repeat essentially the same point I already addressed here in a later reply:

Why should someone adhere to the consensus usage when they tell you they're using some odd definition, like "I define 'correct' as 'a puppy'"? — Terrapin Station

If I'm using it in accordance with the consensus usage, and they want understand me, then they should drop - at least temporary - their own idiotic made-up definition, and adopt instead the consensus usage.

Also, here's more evidence that you're a bad listener. — S

I'm not a listener at all when it comes to long(er) posts. I've explained this many times. You can write posts as long as you want, of course. I'm not doing more than what I consider to be one point or issue at a time, however (especially if someone is in the mood to argue with me). It's up to you whether you want to write stuff that I'm not going to read.

Right, it's reached that point again where you are effectively conceding the debate due to deliberate trouble making, in this case, not putting any effort into actually reading what's being said, and wilful evasion.

lol

It's not funny, it's a stain on your reputation, and ignominious way of ending a debate.

It's not funny, it's a stain on your reputation, and ignominious way of ending a debate. — S

And I'm still not going to read/respond to a bunch of different points/issues at a time when one is in the mood to argue with me.

Definitions/descriptions are different than meanings on my view. — Terrapin Station

The meaning of a symbol is the set of all things that can be represented by that symbol.
The definition of a symbol is a verbal or non-verbal description of its meaning.

So yes, I am inclined to think that they are two different things.

The meaning of the statement "Person P is using word W incorrectly" can be described using an equivalent statement such as "Person P is using word W in a way that most people don't".

You just said that what it "means" to say that word usage is correct/incorrect is that the word usage is the same as the convention/not the same as the convention.

So on your view, what it is to be correct is to be (the same as) the convention. Is that not right? — Terrapin Station

No. The word "correct" does not mean "in accordance with convention". The word "correct" is far more abstract than that. It means "free from error". What kind of error? Well, that's determined by context. The word itself does not specify it.

The degree to which a usage of word is correct or incorrect is determined in relation to some convention. So yes, in this particular context, correct / incorrect is the same as conventional / unconventional. But that does not hold generally. In other contexts, correct / incorrect has nothing to do with conventional / unconventional.

And I'm still not going to read/respond to a bunch of different points/issues at a time when one is in the mood to argue with me. — Terrapin Station

You mean you want to ignore the main thrust of the lengthy debate we were having in order to pursue your red herring.

You do this all the time. Just as we're getting somewhere - Bam! - a red herring, and then there's no going back for you.

The meaning of a symbol is the set of all things that can be represented by that symbol. — Magnus Anderson

Not on my view, but that's another can of worms to get into.

So yes, in this particular context, correct/incorrect is the same as conventional/unconventional. — Magnus Anderson

The idea wasn't that you were necessarily saying this generally. In this case, the norm/convention is correct because?

You mean you want to ignore the main thrust of the lengthy debate we were having in order to pursue your red herring.

You do this all the time. Just as we're getting somewhere - Bam! - a red herring, and then there's no going back for you. — S

Maybe don't start posts with stuff that you consider superfluous? Keep them short and dive right into what you want to discuss at the start. Again, you don't have to do this. It's just a suggestion if you think that I'm addressing superfluous stuff (via my tendency to stop and reply at the first thing I have an issue with)

I'm tired of your excuses. Take responsibility for once.

The idea wasn't that you were necessarily saying this generally. In this case, the norm/convention is correct because? — Terrapin Station

Because when you say that someone is using some word incorrectly what that means is that they are not using that word the way most people do.

Right. So in this case, "correct/incorrect" is just descriptive, where it's the same as "conventional/unconventional." It has no prescriptive weight on your view?

It's ridiculous that Terrapin is telling me, of all people, to keep my posts short.

Right. So in this case, "correct/incorrect" is just descriptive, where it's the same as "conventional/unconventional." It has no prescriptive weight on your view? — Terrapin Station

If you want to be understood and if you want to understand others then you should use words the way other people do.

If you want to be understood then you should use words the way other people do. — Magnus Anderson

If you say something like "I use 'correct' so that it refers to 'a puppy'" that's easy to understand, isn't it?

Of course I'm not just saying that. Haven't you been listening? I'm saying that when that's what's meant, and when you interpret that meaning accordingly, then that's correct, that's successful communication. Why the hell is that so difficult for you to a) understand, and b) acknowledge? You haven't given any sensible response to that.
— S

Can't you successfully communicate with someone using the word "correct" to refer to "a puppy" once they tell you that?

And they can successfully communicate with you using the conventional definition if they're familiar with it, etc. — Terrapin Station

This is a clearcut example of a red herring. Instead of answering my question, he replies with a question of his own, and makes an irrelevant secondary point.

@Terrapin Station does this all the time.

Yes, I respond with questions all the time. My goal is to get folks to think and learn.

A discussion between two people should be quid pro quo. What I've learnt from engaging you in discussion is that you don't care about that, even when it becomes a problem.

If you say something like "I use 'correct' so that it refers to 'a puppy'" that's easy to understand, isn't it? — Terrapin Station

It's easier if people speak the same language. The more you use existing words in your own way, the more difficult it becomes for others to understand you (and also, the more difficult it becomes for you to understand others.)

A discussion between two people should be quid pro quo. What I've learnt from engaging you in discussion is that you don't care about that, even when it becomes a problem. — S

In my opinion discussions don't work when they're not easygoing/friendly, when people are trying to prove the other wrong rather than trying to understand them, and when one person gets too controlling. Hence why I make the moves I make when any of that stuff happens.

It's easier if people speak the same language. The more you redefine existing words, the more difficult it becomes for others to understand you (and also, the more difficult it becomes for you to understand others.) — Magnus Anderson

So would you say it's easy to understand someone redefining "correct" that way or not?

In my opinion discussions don't work when they're not easygoing/friendly, when people are trying to prove the other wrong rather than trying to understand them, and when one person gets too controlling. Hence why I make the moves I make when any of that stuff happens. — Terrapin Station

That's interesting, given that one of your biggest problems is that you get too controlling. You simply must be in control of the direction which the discussion takes, even when I object, justifiably, on the grounds that you've suddenly changed the subject before we've resolved what we were previously discussing, and even when I persistently and forcefully try to get us back on track.

How many discussions have we had which have ended in this way? Because you refuse to play ball? Because I give up?

It just depends on how the conversation is going, if I think it's going. I was writing some longer posts, but this one fell apart when you ignored points I was making, ignored questions I was asking, and then after that, insisted that I answer something in a way that you preferred, or you wouldn't play.

It just depends on how the conversation is going, if I think it's going. I was writing some longer posts, but this one fell apart when you ignored points I was making, ignored questions I was asking, and then after that, insisted that I answer something in a way that you preferred, or you wouldn't play. — Terrapin Station

You often try to turn it back on me, as though I'm the one in the wrong. Try to think about why I did that. You backed me into a corner. You gave me no choice. Why should I tolerate red herrings? If you have any sense of ethics, you should be able to see why that's not a fair approach to discussion. I traced the red herring back to you. The trouble began with you, not me.

You often try to turn it back on me, as though I'm the one in the wrong. Try to think about why I did that. You backed me into a corner. You gave me no choice. Why should I tolerate red herrings? If you have any sense of ethics, you should be able to see why that's not a fair approach to discussion. I traced the red herring back to you. The trouble began with you, not me. — S

It's supposed to be a conversation where we're trying to understand each other, no?

Why would you even look at that as something where "red herrings" could be introduced?