Andrew Wilson

They do, actually.

Not just a postmodernist.

So if you look at definitions of words, you agree they have multitudes of definitions, right?

Well, those are applying often to the distinctions in worldview.

When I say spiritual as a Christian, I'm looking at that from a Christian view, right?

If you say spiritual as a Buddhist, are we saying the same thing?

But the way we view epistemology, ontology, cosmology, everything is going to be completely different.

So when we say that word, we may be pointing to a concept which is similar, but we're actually pointing at something which is different.

Yeah, that's equivocation.

Debating with progressives, I've been doing it for years and years.

The number one fallacy you run into with them, fallacious form of argumentation is equivocation.

They use the ambiguity of words to switch between its meaning depending on which one serves them best at the time, which is why you have to pin them down on semantics immediately.

Because if you don't, they'll spend an entire debate session or conversation using equivocation to move between meanings in an ambiguous way so that they never really have to give an accounting for the things that they actually think because those things are abhorrent.

I do agree with that.

I also understand, though, that meanings of words are going to change with worldview.

From the progressive worldview, you are a Nazi.

And I wish because I don't agree with them.

I wish more people would accept.

Well, it's not just because you don't agree with them.

It's because from that frame, from that worldview.