I meant that the argument between good(1) and good(2) is stupid. Harris is just one side of the debate—i’m saying the entire debate is misguided in the first place, much like it would be stupid to argue the meaning of Ma.
Using good(1) isn’t stupid, and neither is using good(2). It’s just stupid to argue which one good really means.
oops. I guess it could be interpreted that way.
I meant that the argument between good(1) and good(2) is stupid. Harris is just one side of the debate—i’m saying the entire debate is misguided in the first place, much like it would be stupid to argue the meaning of Ma.
Using good(1) isn’t stupid, and neither is using good(2). It’s just stupid to argue which one good really means.