They’re just words. You use ‘em one way, he uses ’em another way. If called on to justify this, he might say, “While it is sometimes useful to distinguish between them, by and large people use them interchangeably without degrading their communication, and that was the case here.”
But improper use necessarily degrades communication, because the distinction expressed by the words is eliminated when the two are treated as equivalent.
There’s no such thing as “just words” in rational argument. Words are the entirety of the process.
He does state that he will use the terms interchangeably in his introduction
That’s why I docked the point!
They are not the same!
They’re just words. You use ‘em one way, he uses ’em another way. If called on to justify this, he might say, “While it is sometimes useful to distinguish between them, by and large people use them interchangeably without degrading their communication, and that was the case here.”
But improper use necessarily degrades communication, because the distinction expressed by the words is eliminated when the two are treated as equivalent.
There’s no such thing as “just words” in rational argument. Words are the entirety of the process.
Actually laughed out loud at this one.