In this paper I react to Arango's objections to my (2014), especially to his claim that antirrealists attack the more natural and intuitive realist's views by means of a flawed argument in which they infer a non-tautological conclusion out of a tautological premise. To respond this attack, I explain my view and show that the argument that Arango attributes to me neither represents adequately my claims, nor has a tautological premise.