Words mean things

Words mean things, definitions are important.  So when someone declaims  "We need to choose...", specifically using the word "need", it seems reasonable that one would use the primary English language definition of the word need when interpreting this sentence.   What, you may ask, is the primary definition of the word need?   

Here it is    need  noun 1. a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation: 

I could be wrong, but if one were to word the sentence, "We are required to choose..." or "We have an obligation to choose...", the meaning is clear.  It is perfectly logical and reasonable to  interpret the sentence using the primary standard definition of the word need.     Unless, of course, you want to make this (honestly) bizarre claim, "... it never occurred to me that you were interpreting "We need" in a non-standard English way.",  under what circumstances is it possible that the primary standard English definition of a word is (objectively) "non-standard"?

Or this.  Not once, but twice the below claim is made

 

 "... there is a time for everything."   "There is a time for everything."

Once again, let's consult the dictionary.

 

 

everything  pronoun  1.every, thing or particular of an aggregate or total; all. 

 

So we have a claim being made that there is a time for "everything", except then things change.  We find out that there is not (contrary to the plain claim) a time for everything.    It would appear that the word everything is being used in a "general and poetically phrased" way.  In other words it is being explicitly used in a "non-standard" way.

I have to wonder why one would in the first case make the unfounded assumption that the word need was not being interpreted in accordance with the primary standard English language definition, then  using this assumption as a way to avoid the implication of the initial claim.   I also have to wonder how someone could use the term everything is a clearly "non-standard" way then become offended it's pointed out that his stated position ( "There is a time for everything.") is a philosophy with which the author does not agree.

It must be nice to think that this convenient manipulation of "standard" and "non-standard" definitions is a reasonable and normal way to engage in discussion.    Seems intellectually inconsistent to me.