I also think facts & reason & evidence & data matter & ethics shld be based on this. Can't just have competing narratives & interpretations.
-
-
-
I just don't want to discuss ethics via individualistic interpretations of ancient texts. If you find moral truths in them, that's great.
-
But if you want me to see them explain them via ethical principles & realistic assessments of consequences.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Help me out. Am I getting this right? J Peterson starts out against PoMo. Words have meaning etc. People agree.
-
Now he comes with obscure message. Same people say words have different meanings. Don't take to literal etc?
-
I'm bored of being told that because someone is interesting on a certain everything they say has to be 100% correct. It's annoying isn't it?
-
Could you explain? I don't quite follow.
-
This is how it always goes. Someone says something interesting. Gains a platform, start sharing their more illusive ideas, others go "Nope"
-
Then use that to discredit the rest or try to turn away their following. I think JP has interesting ideas for conservatives, particularly
-
I'll be interested to see where I said his other ideas were wrong because of this. What also happens a lot is ppl find a person with
-
Sorry, not arguing with you, i'm just talking at you...
- 4 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.