But it really means 'I don't think you should criticise this ideology because I see different ones as more worthy of criticism'
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
That conversation is only possible if they agree with your way of classifying things.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
It;s not my way. I am not the one saying that we shouldn't criticise sets of ideas if we don't like them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I understand that. I am saying that you are merely pointing out your disagreement with their way of classifying actions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
I know I am. That is explicitly what I am doing. Disagreeing with their way of classifying actions. I said so quite clearly.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Ok. My point was that as long as they don't agree with your suggested classification, they can continue to live without contradictions.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer @HPluckrose
So it's not a surprise, not hypocrisy, not a logical failure. It is merely the human tendency to aim for local consistency.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
I don't know what you mean. I don't think I can explain any more clearly but I will try.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
I'm saying consistency is subjective due to independent rationalizing conceptions. Pointing out inconsistencies is inherently difficult.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Let's try anyway. Then communication can happen.
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.