@iDanSimpson 'Shat upon' does seem unlikely to mean 'expressed some reservations abt/have some points of disagreement with.'
I think it can but when between two ppl who both know how this works, a less formal 'can you explain your reasoning?' better?
-
-
Coz the assumption is there that someone requires an intervention to instill doubt re: an unsubstantiated truth claim.
-
So its a bit uneven for when two people suspect they might have different opinions on strategy re: outcome of an election?
-
Think that kind of conversation works best on comparing arguments. In this case, it cld be pragmatics vs principles. Not sure.
-
Imo a Hillary vote is pragmatic but not merely so. Also very principled to directly oppose dangerous threat to U S.
-
I am absolutely not discussing US politics. It gets me into trouble every time. :-p
-
I understand. I thought it was relevant based on the original argument between them.
-
Absolutely. I'm more interested in talking about talking tho! Researching book on this right now.
-
Only to say that it doesn't seem to have to be pragmatic vs. principle if you're being pragmatic out of principle.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.