Just because I do not criticize the way they differ does not mean I don't acknowledge that they differ. It's just that their differences are irrelevant to my argument.
It really doesn't matter what I call it, the concepts are independent from the term. I don't somehow "not learn" or become stupider because of the way I use terms, because as long as the concepts behind them are understood, the terms are just language, ways of communication.
One thing that is very telling:
No, unless you are stupid, because what you denote them by does not affect the concepts behind them. That is why I say even animals who don't use human language understand some of the same concepts we understand. Only a stupid person's ability to learn is limited by language and terminology.If I would just denote both of them as socialism, then I would not learn very much.
Furthermore, you claim that I don't specify causation, but no, you just don't recognize what I said is causation. You refuse to acknowledge my answers doesn't mean the answers didn't exist.
It is because of the ability to move to different levels of abstraction that allows the denotation of things based on more general traits. Do you say that people who acknowledge abstracted/generalized descriptions are stuck on certain levels of abstraction? That would defeat the purpose of abstraction/generalization itself.Because if we just start denoting all things by their most general traits, unable to move to different levels of abstraction, then scholarship is dead.
Guess what, you used the word "thing" in your statement. That's one of the most abstract and general terms there is! It is a denotation based on the most general trait, the trait being "that which exists." Are you saying that you are stuck on certain levels of abstraction because you use the word "thing" that is a very general word encompassing anything in existence? If so, you are attacking yourself.
The reason my arguments are not falsifiable is because they are impeccable, because I am a genius beyond your comprehension, not because I word them in an "unfalsifiable way" because words themselves do not change the concepts and relations behind them.