Definitions: A Little Experiment - Take 2

[LegendaryA]

I have noticed a very interesting thread that went inactive a while ago, and it seems useful given that the problem risen in this thread is again around, only difference, I will propose different words.

I've noticed that every single debate or divisive discussion I have ever been in eventually deteriorates into arguments of definitions. These disagreements in semantics make me wonder if people on opposite sides of issues are even speaking the same language.

One might argue that we should go with the dictionary definition, but of course, different dictionaries have different definitions, and there is often more than one meaning tied to a word in even a single dictionary. And then some people simply reject the dictionary definition.

All this is further confounded by connotation which is the "attitudes and feelings" associated with words. So in a way, every individual has their own unique language.

So as a bit of an experiment, I want to see how different definitions between individuals can be, especially on words that are commonly disagreed on.

Here are the rules.
1. Please do not use dictionaries, Wiki, articles, etc. to copy or craft a definition.
2. Do not read other posts before posting your own definitions and please do not edit your post after you have read other posts.
3. Simply post a definition as if you were asked on the spot in a conversation.
4. Please make your definitions as concise and specific as possible.

Here are the words to define.

Equality
Marriage
Tolerance

Racism
Discrimination
Intolerance/Tolerance
Homophobia
Fascism
Socialism
Secularity
Democracy
Dictatorship
Human Rights
Freedom

I didn't add all words from the original topic as those others didn't seem to be much of an issue.

[Hitchkok]

here's my take on the matter:
semantics is way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, under-rated.
there's no such thing as "merely sematics".
everything in life boils down into two things: definitions and priorities. a debate where the sides can't agree on both will never neither resolve nor evolve.
now, we have to watch out, because discussing definitions quickly becomes bickering, and a sharp tongued debater with an un-observant opponent can preform all kinds of wonderful fallacies by choosing his definitions wisely.
for this reason, we must take up the practice of clearly defining whatever concept we use, as to allow a common languge, specific to that particular debate.

now, pops, for the punch.
if i get your drift, your gonna show that most people's definition for marriage are similar, indeed almost identical to whatever sort of not here-not there aarangement you have in france. if so, i ask, why not call it marriage?
is it for fear of certain religious extremists?

[LegendaryA]

here's my take on the matter:
semantics is way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, under-rated.
there's no such thing as "merely sematics".
everything in life boils down into two things: definitions and priorities. a debate where the sides can't agree on both will never neither resolve nor evolve.
now, we have to watch out, because discussing definitions quickly becomes bickering, and a sharp tongued debater with an un-observant opponent can preform all kinds of wonderful fallacies by choosing his definitions wisely.
for this reason, we must take up the practice of clearly defining whatever concept we use, as to allow a common languge, specific to that particular debate.

now, pops, for the punch.
if i get your drift, your gonna show that most people's definition for marriage are similar, indeed almost identical to whatever sort of not here-not there aarangement you have in france. if so, i ask, why not call it marriage?
is it for fear of certain religious extremists?

I don't get the end of your post.

And the take 1 didn't have much issues, so unless people became immature compared to a year and half ago, it shouldn't go wrongly.

This thread is about debates n general in this section for last few monthes. Not particular thread.