Necessary evils

Excellent then you know that if you cannot separate a valid argument from an invalid argument and you cannot separate a valid and sound argument from one which is in fact only valid you will by necessity be unable to evaluate the arguments of other's effectively. 

Do you really want to get into this valid/sound debacle again?

Not if you are unwilling to understand the difference. 

According to the dictionary there is no difference feel free to look back at the evidence I posted in your basic axiom forum.

Be that as it may when I use the terms there is a difference. Therefore if you are unwilling to understand that difference even just for the purposes of our conversations you will be unable to understand me. Which is a shame since I am being so clear on the point.

Well if the way your using it is different from the dictionary, then by definition it’s wrong (So much for clear on the point, I love how your asking me to look stuff up when you CLEARLY have no idea what you’re talking about).

The dictionary is not the final arbiter of meaning in fact dictionaries can only describe popular usage. 

I don't think you understand how to make or evaluate valud arguments to such a degree that you can reliably make this observation. 

Then what is?

It is a book describing popular usage.

The non sequitur you see is not, itself, rational. Plato argued the theory of conflict in the soul in The Republic that there were three elements to the human soul: appetite, spirit, and reason. Of the of appetite, that which consumes, it consists of two opposing elements: appetitive and aversive. Appetitive is a desire for that which is good [food, shelter, etc]. Aversive is an appetite for that which is not good [or, evil]. We are faced with both elements of appetite, i.e., we face opposition, even as the basic biological function of response to stimuli. All stimuli are either appetitive or aversive as relates to the health of the soul and the body. Thus, there is opposition in all things we encounter as living organisms.

If there is no opposition, there is nothing.

That doesn’t answer my question, I asked you what is the final arbiter of meaning not what is a dictionary.

What is the opposite of tree? What is the opposite of mathematics? What is the opposite of the color blue? 

I find your reasoning unconvincing unless there is an opposing force to the color blue.

The person who is talking/writing is the final arbiter of their own meaning. 

Then how could you expect to be understood if your just gonna go against the grain?

If that is what I am doing I expect to be understood by explicitly addressing what I mean when I use a term.

Well maybe if you used the correct terms you would save yourself the time of always having to explain what you mean.

Oh i don't mind especially since people can rarely be counted on to agree with everyone else's definition or for every definition to remain the same in every context. It is almost necessary considering the kind of conversation this is.

Non starter. Correct is subjective to a goal.

Why can’t “your meaning” conform to the dictionary’s?

Because it is insufficient to my needs.

Why do you “need” to go against the dictionary?

I need to go against your understanding of the dictionary because I have a meaning to communicate and I need the words to do so.

If the dictionary provides insufficient verbiage to differentiate the concepts I am trying to communicate than just accepting my preferred terms FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CONVERSATION would allow us to have any discussion whatever.

I find it slightly hypocritical that you refer me to look things up for evidence when clearly evidence means nothing to you in regards to the terms valid/sound (the epitome of ignorance BTW).

What evidence? The dictionary is not the final arbiter of my meaning even if you allow it to be the final arbiter of yours.

The dictionary only explains popular usage. 

So I mean what I say I mean not what you would like me to mean. Until you understand that you will not be able to have any meaningful communication with me.

Apparently not if what you mean and say doesn’t align with the dictionary.