You said that it's a waste of time to argue what IQ score qualifies as "Idiot". There is a clear and concrete answer to that question, because the word "idiot"

You said that it's a waste of time to argue what IQ score qualifies as "Idiot". There is a clear and concrete answer to that question, because the word "idiot" has a medical definition. Yes, you were correct in your statement that it's a waste of time to argue, but not for the reason you state: There is a clear and correct answer. (at least) one person involved in such an argument will be empirically incorrect. >arguing the "prescriptive" versus "descriptive" models of language is trite Then I'd suggest that in future you should avoid starting arguments about it. >If you want to argue facts, just don't use pejoratives and insults. As I have repeatedly pointed out, I don't accept it as an insult in this case. It is merely a fact, empirically correct. The audacity maintainers are scumbags (and to be clear, I mean all of them, not just the guy who blocked me, not just the muse employees: anybody who hasn't left the project, as they're all complicit in this behaviour). Unless someone can give me the differing ethical viewpoint that I have repeatedly solicited to the point of tedium, you can't sensibly argue otherwise.