Descriptivist VS. Prescriptivist

Reading The New York Times' article Which Language Rule to Flout. Or Flaunt? had me confused, but as the discussion unraveled I understood what was going on. In this article two writers, Robert Lane Greene and Bryan A. Garner, argue and explain their point of view. For those who did not read the article, Greene is a "prescriptivist" and Garner is a "descriptivist." For those people aswell, here is the definition of those two words:

• Descriptivist: "describe language as it is used" (Greene).
• Prescriptivist: "focus on how language should be used" (Greene).

I have to side to Garner. I am a descriptivist, or at least I support its ideals. One of the things that made me decide this was just the way how Greene defends himself. Personal Attack. In the first paragraph he says, "people like you don't understand that language must grow and change." Oh no he didn't. This discussion got heated up, at least more than expected. But here my opinion, and my reason to why I side with Garner.First of all as he refers to this labels "unhelpful," which is something I agree with. Second of all when he says, "I were to define descriptivists as quantitative social scientists with no interest in literary style who nevertheless study language." If you ask me this is what the definition of a descriptivist is. It is someone that cares only in language, maybe someone who would rock AP Language and composition, but as a whole I consider it as someone that might not appreciate different types of writing but one the just takes in count the "meta rule." 

Maybe it is not just the fact that I agree with Garner, but the one that I disagree with Greene. I started disagreeing when he said that their should exist such thing as a "meta-rule," that states that anything regarding language is correct with it's "actual usage" and not a "proposed rule." As Greene would say, "error." I believe that as a writer you should focus on how language should be used. I think that by being a prescriptivist the writer has a broader more open mind.

Telling people wether your use of the comma is wrong, is the work of a third grade teacher. In some point in life one must know the rules of language to have a foundation to break it. If not one wouldn't be able to give this critical opinion and nevertheless write without not being completely irrelevant. Because of these taking Greene's opinion would be totally valid.

 I believe Garner's point of view has more of a contemporary take to it, while Greene's is more old school in which everything has to be correct. Being a descriptivist gives more freedom when writing, a feeling of no boundaries. Now that's why I side with Garner and why I am descriptivist.