Dick, just think of all the wars that could be avoided if people agreed on definitions.

The problem is that words are often used as weapons or tools to convince sometimes by condign means. Definitions then become irrelevant.

"Morality" is one of those words that is used as a weapon of accusation or promulgating
convictions.

Many of the words offered by religionists must be questioned in terms of the definitions that they are given. The Manichean view of "good and evil" must be continuously be redefined or in some cases outright rejected.

Asking for agreement on definitions in a way is impossible. You can go to Oxford and
Websters and still not find agreement.

A lot has been said about "agreeing to disagree" but maybe not enough about "agreeing to find agreement".

For the latter to occur, you have to have an open mind and a willingness to listen and evaluate a point-of-view that you might not agree with.

Even when people are pitted against each other ideologically there are elements in counter-arguments that are potentially points of agreement. I think this is what
Jon Stewart is trying to promote.

We can all "get it" wrong and we can all "get it" right.