I'm not putting words in your mouth. I want anarchy to work. But you're complaining about misuse of a term and appealing to the authority of something that just describes usage. Yes, there's the original usage. No, that on its own doesn't describe what you mean. It's something that has to be accepted, because meanings splinter and expand over time unless they're forgotten about entirely.
Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? I'm not sure I follow.
And yes, you are putting words in my mouth when you come up with that business about dead languages and "prescriptivism."
You're citing a 'correct' definition for a word even when all popular usage gives alternate, descriptively correct, meanings for the same word. That is prescriptivism.
From what I've been able to dig up, there's more to the concept of prescriptive language than that--some of which I do agree with, and some that I do not. Interestingly, the information I found indicates that prescriptive and descriptive language are considered complimentary approaches, rather than opposing camps as you seem to be implying.
Regardless, I never "argued for perscriptivism," and I would not do so now that I have some notion of what the term means.
By the very definition of anarchy you're espousing, it's rank hypocrisy to ask that people respect the authority of dictionaries because it spares you a few sentences of clarification about anarchism.
Aside from everything else you've gotten wrong here, you've also confused the notion of being an authority on a subject and wielding authority over other people. This is why clearly defined terms are necessary for discussion.
An authority on language does not tell people how to talk any more than an authority on chemistry tells molecules how to interact. They provide information regarding the structure and conventions of a given language, which you are free to follow or not as you see fit. However, if you choose to deviate from those conventions, then you are not using precisely the same language--any more than an RPG group using a set of houserules is playing precisely the same game as the one in the books.
What conflict do you claim to see between Anarchism and voluntarily choosing to abide by a set of linguistic conventions? I would argue that there is none, it just makes sense to do so if you want to be able to communicate clearly.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/us/colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting/
'Dear mentioned "baby parts" after the shooting and expressed anti-abortion and anti-government views, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation said.'
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151130/PC16/151139933
“He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions,” Mescher stated in the affidavit. “He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/who-robert-dear-planned-parenthood-shooting-suspect-seemed-strange-not-n470896
'Former next door neighbor John Hood said that Dear hardly ever spoke wit him, but when he did, he would offer nonsensical advice, like recommending that Hood put a metal roof on his house so the U.S. government couldn't spy on him.'
And back to our regularly scheduled program.
So *gasp shock*, it appears the perpetrator
was motivated by a combination of political beliefs and mental delusions.
Damn shame there isn't more effort made to identify and treat mental illness. Instead we wait until someone does something illegal and then punish them for behavior that is merely a symptom of their disease.
