“You are discounting linguistic imperialism.”
That’s a country forcing another country to use, say, English.
Languages that aren’t dead change all the time. That’s why it’s hard to read Chaucer or Shakespeare.
"Which is naïve (because of Krauss IMHO) and a little hypocritical vis”
Vis means power.
Did you mean ‘vis a vis,’ or ‘in relation to,’ instead?
“the conflict definition of marriage.”
No one’s changing the definition of marriage. Two people joined at the property with established rights and privileges with respect to (or vis a vis) the other partner.
I mean, LITERALLY it’s a specific form of partnership, with a lot of precedent tied up to the term ‘marriage.’
"Where a new definition seeks destruction of an old definition.”
Hardly. They want the ability to cover each other with their employer’s insurance, to make medical decisions for a patient that cannot, to win the ‘first kiss’ raffle when a deployed unit returns to home port, to pick up ‘their’ kids from school, to cosign a loan, have legal proxy, and send out wedding invitations.
The only thing changing is an irrational limitation of who can enjoy this partnership.
“Dawkins, Krauss and Dennett to me seek to impose their definitions and destroy all other ideas and definition.IMHO.”
In my opinion, you’re projecting. YOU would like to control the definition, and erase all other uses of the term.
“Memetics is a case in point since it is an exercise in the subduction of other sociological ideas in the interest of the New Atheist portfolio.”
Meh. You don’t have to be an atheist to recognize love being worth preserving. Or at least not discriminating against it.
