[Fat1Fared]

Originally Posted by ShizukaMikudou

No, I am not changing a definition, and by "giving it a better definition", I meant temporarily, obviously. Metaphorically, skeptically. Not literally.

As I said, by the understanding of everyone, bar you, you are changing them. Why? Because:
1=To change something is to make it different to what it was previously.
2=To be different is to be 'not the same.'
3=Your definition is not the same as the previous definition of the word.
4=Thus your definition is different.
5=Therefore you have changed their meanings, or at least unsuccessfully tried to.

=As for your use of the words, "temporarily, obviously. Metaphorically, skeptically." Well, unfortunately, your usage of them makes no sense to anyone bar, presumably, yourself. Why? Because:
1= Temporarily changing something means you make it different for a short period of time. That means you have just said you are giving them new definitions for a short period of time, then changing them back. I am not sure how this proves your point.
2=Using words metaphorically is not changing, it means you are using their meaning a non-literal sense; however, this does not your help because that is not what you are doing. You are using your own, new, definitions of the words in a very literal sense.
3=To be skeptical is to be mildly disbelieving of something. Now your use of the word means you just stated that you are skeptical of your own theory. This is because currently the words position in the sentence means the only dominant clause it can be linked with is your own theory, thus you just said you are skeptical of your own theory. Now, may be you are, I do not know, your constantly changing of the English language makes you hard to follow, but I do think that is what you actually meant to do. Thus, the word here, I am sorry to inform you, is not being used correctly for your purposes.

Not only do words change all the time, but several words have multiple meanings. If, for example, looking at it in another way, a man giving a speech starts off saying that when he mentions "lions", he is referring to the military and calling it powerful, then in the duration of his speech, "lions" means powerful military, not actual lions.

That is not changing the meaning of a word, that is the correct way to metaphorically use a word. Lions are perceived to be brave and strong, thus the word 'lion' is associated with these characteristics. That means when he uses the word 'lion' to refer to the group in question, he is not changing the meaning, he is merely using it as dramatic substitute for words which are already associated with the word 'lions' original meaning.

Bringing that analogy here, the audience is telling him he is wrong because lions don't fight in the war. He is not changing a definition, only giving it a different definition for the situation. It does not change the law that the accepted definition of a lion is "A large feline predator, usually living in Africa, where the males grow manes." But even so, maybe some time afterwards, people begin to actually call the military, "lions". That doesn't mean that the man who gave the speech really was claiming that lions fought in the military, nor that the military turned into lions.

As I said, he is not changing it, he is merely using it metaphorically to express characteristics already associated with the word. That is quite distinct to what you are doing.

As I said, work out why the man has not yet made a religion and you will find your answer as to why you are seen by all, but yourself, as wrong.