Who said I only wanted half a world? I want a world in which when I choose to resolve a conflict or solve a problem, I have effective tools for doing so.
Well, your choice of words, or rather your binary code (disease vs wealth, health, happiness) evoked a different image.
Regarding the rest after "And again": How do you know these things? What can I do to validate the truth of these statements in my own experience?
Simple counter-question: How do you express existential temporality, or rather the temporality that is so essential for our being in and towards the world, without using any form of "to be"?
As for the rest: Each historical attempt to standardize language and meaning in whatever way has always been the outcome of a top-down decision. It creates for example an administrative language, a jurisdictional language, a langage that is somehow tied to institutions, not so much to its everyday use and development. Languages "grow" beyond normative rules, which one can observe with regard to dialects, the vernacular. It also doesn't remain static. Monolingualism is not a reality, not even within one language (like English, German, French, Chinese, etc.), only to the most ignorant ones.
Ask the people of Nagasaki about that. I understand that life involves strife, and that stress can cause growth. Stress can also crush your skull into your brain when it comes from an 18-wheeler that has intruded into your personal space. So I distinguish stress that helps me grow from stress that helps me die, and resist romanticizing all stress as if it inherently had some deeper purpose or value. Sometimes it might, sometimes it might not. I guess I should have explained that I don't seek to avoid arguments, I seek to avoid arguments that arise from confusions of language. Once we all use the same language in a discussion and can agree that we do, we can still have disagreements of values. It is what it is. ~
The Nagasaki reference was a cynical remark and I don't see how that is related to disagreements, arguing, and strife when we talk about the use of language. And who said that I was romanticizing stress? I just can't see what's so bad about arguing, or where the negative connotation comes from. It's what you do in discussions and debates when you hopefully don't start a sentence with "I feel like…".
I also don't see how you want to separate language from values. Values don't exist anywhere outside language. They're not independent entities floating about. They have to be defined and thought in and through language. There's a whole philosophical field for that. It's called the "history of ideas".
And I also don't know what you mean by us "all us[ing] the same language in a discussion". Do you want to turn that into a precondition for people who would like to enter a discussion? And who's going to decide what's the right and the wrong language? How should every single person of that group be equipped with the comprehensive linguistic, etymological, historical, and philosophical knowledge of more than 2000 years to be even slightly eligible for making such decisions, if at all?