Semantic differences then.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Not really, if you're a liberal individualist, you view liberty as non-intervention while a personalist might agree with interventions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
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
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I think that is already the wrong, superficial outlook of debate. More than a decade of New Atheism brought zero progression.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DeMondige
OK, that's a different point tho. This is an example of how people can talk past each other and not achieve anything.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It doesn't matter whether you think its worth discussing or not. Those people did and couldn't coz they refused to understand each other.
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.