• Rocha@lm.put.tf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Welp, by the same logic, I guess social justice ain’t real justice.

    • onkyo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, because everything must always be literal and if something is not words just don’t have meaning anymore /s

    • Fanghole@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s not the same logic though. His logic is “Noun A is part of noun AB, that does not mean noun AB is equal to or a subset of A.” While the way you’re interpreting it is “Noun A is part of noun AB, thus AB is not equal to and not a subset of A.” The important part is that his logic only dictates that the relationship between A and AB are independent of eachother, while your interpretation states that A depends on AB in an inverse manner. Ie: “We cannot say popcorn is or is not corn based on name alone,” vs “popcorn cannot be corn because corn is in the name.”

      Not taking a side on social justice, the logical comparison you attempted just bothered me. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

      • Jorgelino@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thank you. Logical fallacies like this irk me a thousand times more than any one ideology.