 One radical way to reconcile the Semantic View with the defeasibility data is to argue that a condition can be part of what constitutes the meaning of an expression even if the expression doesn’t satisfy the condition and even if the condition can be competently rejected by users of the expression. On this view, chaste might entail good for showing sexual restraint as a matter of meaning even if things to which chaste applies in fact aren’t good in any way and even if some semantically competent speakers reject the evaluation without rejecting  (1).  In developing this view, Matti Eklund argues that it isn’t ad hoc because there are other concepts that can plausibly be treated as inconsistent in this kind of way (Eklund 2011).