Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

urzu_seven t1_jegs2jn wrote

You are not using “the strictest definition”. You are using an arbitrarily chosen definition to justify your argument while ignoring other more common and equally valid definitions.

2

Jimid41 t1_jegsej8 wrote

Oh you have a stricter definition. Let's see it.

−1

urzu_seven t1_jegsuod wrote

There is no “stricter” definition. That’s your problem. You are trying to be pedantic about something that doesn’t apply.

2

Jimid41 t1_jegt3ad wrote

Are you arguing that more constricting parameters doesn't equate to a stricter definition?

0

urzu_seven t1_jegv1rg wrote

When it comes to defining whether the meaning of a word is valid or not yes, absolutely you can’t have a “stricter” definition because it’s a binary operation. Either the definition is valid or it’s not.

Battery as a single object is a valid definition. It is, to use your language, strictly valid and just as strictly valid as other accepted and used definitions.

You are, ironically, confusing definition of words, with definition of situations.

2

Jimid41 t1_jeh1ekm wrote

Good thing in this case validity of the use of the word wasn't in question since it was prefaced with "strictly speaking".

−1