User talk:Skakkle/it is what it is

it's just the dialectic inherent in the shit this page talks about has already walked so far down a kind of formal path that any sort of common-sense refutations are either inappropriate, hasty or seem unthinking. I think the scope of the content I grabbed from Theological_noncognitivism is either too narrow or too broad. either way, I want to know the scope or the intended scope of the author. or get a better sense of the major ideas & major figures in the "field".

so
I think a sort of common-sense approach is valuable. cuz--- sociolinguistics can tell us about the realities of what ppl say, what ppl mean and the interplay of the two. bam!