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