She also fails to see that there are two aspects to definition of anything; what it is and what it does
You might enjoy this
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrF1...
She also fails to see that there are two aspects to definition of anything; what it is and what it does
You might enjoy this
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrF1...
I think, in fairness to her though, there are two aspects to the definition of anything: what it is and what it does
She's stuck in the abstract ideology of trying to pin down something intangible, whereas, you've chosen to ignore it completely.
I think, in fairness to her though, there are two aspects to the definition of anything: what it is and what it does
She's stuck in the abstract ideology of trying to pin down something intangible, whereas, you've chosen to ignore it completely.
"But to preserve something, we must first define it" is her biggest error though
Trying to pin down abstract ideology leads to madness... or a rock hut
"But to preserve something, we must first define it" is her biggest error though
Trying to pin down abstract ideology leads to madness... or a rock hut
That way they're not constantly reacting to the latest outrage
It's just further evidence the narrative is true
That way they're not constantly reacting to the latest outrage
It's just further evidence the narrative is true
Therefore, instead of floundering in a flooded zone, use the newest outrage as proof of the overall concept
Therefore, instead of floundering in a flooded zone, use the newest outrage as proof of the overall concept