Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9555952" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Then thats an incorrect definition and one you can’t find any major dictionary agreeing with. Then don’t. But seriously at least check out the dictionaries in this instance.I mean if you are now saying an apologist can defend something moral then to me that’s a backdown from the original claim. So I agree that a person can use the to mean something like ‘you shouldn’t be listened to because you’ll defend anything’. That’s certainly one modern pejorative connotation.&nbsp; It’s not a silly semantic game. Here’s why it matters to me. Because if you are saying apologists only defend the immoral then you are lumping any faith based apologist as defending the immoral, implying that all faiths are immoral.&nbsp; I don’t think that’s your intention, but it’s the consequence of your definition, which I’m sure you can see why that would be important and matter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 9555952, member: 6795602"] Then thats an incorrect definition and one you can’t find any major dictionary agreeing with. Then don’t. But seriously at least check out the dictionaries in this instance. I mean if you are now saying an apologist can defend something moral then to me that’s a backdown from the original claim. So I agree that a person can use the to mean something like ‘you shouldn’t be listened to because you’ll defend anything’. That’s certainly one modern pejorative connotation. It’s not a silly semantic game. Here’s why it matters to me. Because if you are saying apologists only defend the immoral then you are lumping any faith based apologist as defending the immoral, implying that all faiths are immoral. I don’t think that’s your intention, but it’s the consequence of your definition, which I’m sure you can see why that would be important and matter. [/QUOTE]

Verification