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.
I can imagine your service advisor smirking every time the customer complained and it brings me delight. Her and your manager make it sound like an amazing workplace.
"national socialists were socialist" (lemmy.ml)
[REPOST] Don’t Want A Woman Working On Your Car? Have Fun Waiting
[REPOST] Many years ago, I worked at a car dealership. The attached service garage was small and I was the only licensed mechanic....