I understand that distinction and you , apparently, do not. That does not make you an idiot, it makes you uniformed on matters of lexicography. And if calling me an idiot is your only defense, then you truly do not understand the distinction.
You define the word they way you insist it must be used by others, (prescriptive) and I define the word they way it is actually used by others (descriptive).
For either of us to call the other wrong is to confess ignorance of the overarching domain. And since you seem intimidated by my use of "many words" let me just quote wikipedia:
Linguistic prescription (or prescriptivism) is the practice of elevating one variety or manner of language use over another. (your preferred approach)
VS
In the study of language, description or descriptive linguistics is the work of objectively analyzing and describing how language is actually used (or how it was used in the past) by a group of people in a speech community.
All scholarly research in linguistics is descriptive; like all other sciences, its aim is to observe the linguistic world as it is, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be. (my preferred approach)
Do you now understand my point? If you do, I am happy that I could help you. If you do not, then you're just being deliberately obtuse. Either way, I will not waste any more time on this pointless discussion since it was settled decades ago by the linguistic community, and there's no need for me to "settle" it again. It's settled science.
On edit: And why did I bother to respond at all? Because you said I "don't know shit" and that I'm "an idiot". You don't even know me, yet you feel comfortable hurling hurtful insults at me for no other reason than that you didn't understand my point. That, frankly, hurt my feelings (and if that makes you happy, well then congratulations on that marvelous accomplishment, You may be a vegan because you don't want to treat animals with cruelty, but you apparently have no difficulty treat fellow human beings with cruelty.)