@philosophyexp I've read parts of it. I'll read it later; just on phne now. 1st thing I read was his response & I didn't think much of it
-
@PhilosophyExp Eg the bit on divisions. His doesn't actually counter what she says, he argues another point.
@mollydot The bit on divisions is weak, coz it was weak in the original. But this is where a principle of charity comes into play.
-
-
@PhilosophyExp So he could have left it, rather than claiming she's distorting what he said. -
@mollydot No, because his original language is more subtle that you're allowing (again principle of charity). Here look:
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.