3 ms·
By that same token, we don't need to regard your definitions as sacrosanct, either. Remember, you're asserting your personal definitions over those that have d
by rosser 8y ago
By that same token, we don't need to regard your definitions as sacrosanct, either.
Remember, you're asserting your personal definitions over those that have developed through decades of academic discourse on the subject.
Why should we prefer your terms, again?
- ankushnarula 8y agoBecause they're not my definitions. They're the generally accepted definitions. The definitions you are presenting are therefore ideological at best.
- beat 8y ago"Generally accepted" by whom? In my circles, the definitions rosser and I have offered are the generally accepted ones.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- BeetleB 8y ago>Why should we prefer your terms, again? They are not his terms. His definition is the one that has existed for much longer than the ones the academics prefer. People don't have issue with the academics' need to make distinctions. The issue is that if you need to make a distinction, you should coin a word for what you mean - not use a very well established term.