I already explained above but you have comprehension problem.
No, you didn't.
You fled from it, and have now admitted I was right.
As usual, you manipulate the subject by making word games.
No, I don't. I directly call out your dishonesty.
You claimed that YOU had made up the definition of a word which existed long before you were born.
That was clearly BS.
You have now admitted that the word (and definition) existed before you.
That is you admitting that you were blatantly lying.
I'm not making word games here.
I'm not manipulating anything here.
I am exposing your wilful dishonesty.
If you want to appeal to the first definition, then you lose because it isn't your garbage.
If you don't want to appeal to the first definition, then we can focus on the definition for this context, and again discard your garbage.
Just because you claim something doesn't happen without proof
If you wish to try bringing up proof, prove that your delusional BS is the sole real definition.
You can start by proving that all dictionaries are wrong.
The way I see it, you tend to reject mine while accepting others.
And as usual, you saw what you want to see.
I reject the definitions which are irrelevant to the discussion as irrelevant.
It doesn't matter to you whether what I say is true or not. You have to argue that I am wrong, because this is your reason for being.
And wrong yet again.
I fully accept your statement that the definition existed before you, because that is the truth.
Because unlike you, I care about the truth.
I'm not going to blatantly lie to everyone to further a pathetic agenda.
I will leave that kind of dishonesty up to you.
These are meanings that have been put forward philosophically in recent years. Only you, Elon, and AI's other minions are defending them.
These meanings have been put forward as technology has developed. It is the meaning that is being discussed here. Plenty of sane people accept this meaning.
You hating that and wanting to insert your own delusional BS wont change that fact, nor will it magically make people minions.
AI doesn't exist at a level where it can have minions yet, and it is unclear if it ever will.
When you said that the definitions were too many, you didn't compare the with the noun version of the adjective singular. But when it comes to my definition, you immediately feel the need to compare it with the origin of the word.
The sole reason I do that is because you are lying and claiming that your delusional garbage is the origin.
Here you are doing what I call "manipulation" above. You're clearly proving yourself to be a hypocrite here. Are we surprised? Of course no.
No, that would be you. And given your track record of blatant dishonesty and just inventing whatever delusional BS you need to pretend your delusional BS is true, it isn't surprising at all.
You are the one who wanted to try pretending you had the original definition so all others can be discarded. But then when it comes time for the actual original definition, you flee from it and look for excuses to deflect.
I'm not the one reliant upon the original definition.
Again, either only the original definition matters, so your delusional BS is discarded as a false definition; or the definition can vary depending on context, and your definition is discarded as not the appropriate one for this context. Either way, your BS is discarded.
Conversely, my position doesn't rely upon the original definition at all.
My position is that the meaning of a word will vary with context.
The argument just serves to demonstrate your position is pure garbage.
The rest of your supposedly answer is full of inconsistencies and hypocrisy. I think the subject is well understood by the general reader. By the way, you are proving that you are a robot that I don't give it a damn.
And more pathetic projection.
Now which option will you pick? That your definition is irrelevant garbage because it isn't the original, or that your definition is irrelevant garbage because it is not the correct definition for this context?