In addition to contentful philosophical implications, the distinction between primary and secondary meaning has an impact on how philosophy is done. For instance, NS 1.2.10ff, in outlining the appropriate terms of philosophical debate, defines the flaw of casuistry (vimāṃsa) as misusing words to mislead one’s opponent. There are a number of types of casuistry, one of which is figurative. Vātsyāyana, in his commentary (NBh 1.2.14), cites one of the stock examples of secondary meaning of the indicative type: “The stands are shouting.” Here, where the meaning is that people seated on wooden structures are shouting, it would be casuistry to reply, “No, the stands are not shouting, but the people are shouting.” This overly literal interlocutor pretends to misunderstand the speaker’s intention, and makes there to be conflict when there is none. Whether or not this kind of debate flaw is an importantly unique kind of casuistry (there is some discussion about this in the commentaries), Nyāya philosophers emphasize that verbal hair-splitting without charity towards one’s debate opponent constitutes a condemnable manner of intellectual speech (NS 1.2.2, Todeschini 2010).