It is a reference to what you said (you recurrently say things “must” do this, “must” be like this, … so I highlighted several times the must keywork during our answers for you to understand the point):
So when you add:
I answer, OK, that’s fine, “I do not have to”, “I don’t >>must<<” do anything, I am free to not be in the position behind your “if […]”.
So I am pointing out how much absolutist your propositions are. You regularly coin phrases of the form “things must be that way”.
I say no. Things never have to be “this way” or “this other way”. It always depends of the referential you evaluate things against. So if you evaluate words against the “demo definition of what should be a word and what it shouldn’t be”, then yes, of course, the definition of a word is what it “etymologicaly means”, because you chose this referential of evaluation.
But if you evaluate words against the “chinese definition of what is a word in the chinese language”, then they won’t agree with the fact “banana” is a word.
And of course I add that, if you don’t understand this point, then you probably should not use libre currencies because you deny the relativity principle.