Not really, if you're a liberal individualist, you view liberty as non-intervention while a personalist might agree with interventions.
-
-
Replying to @DeMondige
We have a semantic difference in that we're talking abt same thing using different words. Let's not argue definitions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I think semantics are very important, because it is the cause of miscommunication.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DeMondige
Yes, but these are cleared up by establishing what the other person means and going from there.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Not by insisting on reading the other person's meaning as your own even when theyve said no
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
That is akin to conceptual relativism, it stifles rather than promotes dialectical debate. It is a good start to ask why we think different.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DeMondige @HPluckrose
Our concepts reflects our Weltanschauung or world view. I miss that in current political debate; we seem to stay at a superficial level.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DeMondige @HPluckrose
It also explains the rage on the campuses: we do not really exchange what we truly, radically think and thus we cannot understand the other.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DeMondige @HPluckrose
Most of the SJW can't even articulate what their world view is. Without it, we are just shouting at each other's walls.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DeMondige
Yes but this doesn't require insisting the other person means what you mean rather than what they mean, does it? Can I go now?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.