Edfilho
Cry some more!
So, psych, what you are saying is that there is an universal, single and unique TRUTH?
That no two or more different opinions on a subject can coexist?
You are exagerating the opposing argument so to make it ridiculous and try to prove you point. It's shallow rethoric. It's lame. No one here never said anything close to:
It is naïve to insist that broad meaning words like setting and background have strict senses that cannot be interpreted in any other way. Every freshman in the Social Communication college knows that the communication process necessarely involves the concepts and pre-concepts of both the emitter and the receptor. To insist that EVERYONE must understand the meaning of word in the precise same way is either naïve or arrogant.
That no two or more different opinions on a subject can coexist?
You are exagerating the opposing argument so to make it ridiculous and try to prove you point. It's shallow rethoric. It's lame. No one here never said anything close to:
"I'm not wrong, I just have different opinions in how the word inteprets to me! Respect my diversity in the name of tolerance!"
It is naïve to insist that broad meaning words like setting and background have strict senses that cannot be interpreted in any other way. Every freshman in the Social Communication college knows that the communication process necessarely involves the concepts and pre-concepts of both the emitter and the receptor. To insist that EVERYONE must understand the meaning of word in the precise same way is either naïve or arrogant.