I agree it could have been worded better but, I see no reason your argument should only be applied to contentious subjects.
You also have said a different thing here, before you said you disagreed with it because I was apparently redefining a word. Now you are saying you disagree because I was using it to serve an agenda (or at least it was written in a manner that implied that).
I cannot see what this agenda would be however, I merely explained the definitions as I see them both. Real being that which is a part of our testable world, existence being a more broad term that includes everything that is real as well as that which is not actually real (characters in a book would exist but, are not real, they exist as fiction). My version of 'real' has no exeptions except for that which is not a part of reality, hence the use of the word 'real'.
We define words to facilitate communication, for this purpose I sought to clarify those two words. Oh, and that I was under the impression it was the whole point of the bloody thread
You also have said a different thing here, before you said you disagreed with it because I was apparently redefining a word. Now you are saying you disagree because I was using it to serve an agenda (or at least it was written in a manner that implied that).
I cannot see what this agenda would be however, I merely explained the definitions as I see them both. Real being that which is a part of our testable world, existence being a more broad term that includes everything that is real as well as that which is not actually real (characters in a book would exist but, are not real, they exist as fiction). My version of 'real' has no exeptions except for that which is not a part of reality, hence the use of the word 'real'.
We define words to facilitate communication, for this purpose I sought to clarify those two words. Oh, and that I was under the impression it was the whole point of the bloody thread
