So either liberals take a defensive stand (intolerance against intolerant, as Popper puts it) or they perish.
We have a semantic difference in that we're talking abt same thing using different words. Let's not argue definitions.
-
-
I think semantics are very important, because it is the cause of miscommunication.
-
Yes, but these are cleared up by establishing what the other person means and going from there.
-
Not by insisting on reading the other person's meaning as your own even when theyve said no
-
That is akin to conceptual relativism, it stifles rather than promotes dialectical debate. It is a good start to ask why we think different.
-
No, its not. If someone means 'lacking belief in God' by atheism and someone else 'claims to know God not to exist' they can still talk
-
but only by discussing the concepts of lack of knowledge and claim to knowledge, not by deliberately misunderstanding the other person.
-
I think misunderstanding is never deliberate. Misunderstanding arises from a communication problem (see Wittgenstein).
End of conversation
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.