But when an author specifically states the definition for a word in the context of his work, it is absurd to pick at that point instead of trying to grasp the concept.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
But when an author specifically states the definition for a word in the context of his work, it is absurd to pick at that point instead of trying to grasp the concept.
The entire article is clearly framed as an attempt to prove what patriotism is, and how it aligns with anarchy. Then he quickly changes tune and says
You can't prove that something is aligned with morality by immediately re-defining the word, and then giving examples of how your new definition fits the morality. This is intellectually dishonest, a sort of bait-and-switch.