|
|
|
|
|
by straiberman
6394 days ago
|
|
I think you're creating a straw-man here and end up proving jsomers's point. You jump on the delicacy of the language and that's the point. jsomers doesn't argue _about_ this particular law, he was only giving an example on how pushing and pulling language can have direct pragmatic purposes and real political ramifications. The point is that since law is mired in language, exploring language becomes an incredibly relevant task and pg's criticism seems to ignore this important function. |
|
Later jsomers says philosophy was bad but has reformed.
So on the one hand he defends old philosophy. And on the other he claims philosophy was bad, but is OK now because it has reformed. These defenses are incompatible.