4 ms·

>That you don't see it is framed as a question. To restate: "I'm not sure how saying that a non diverse group is inferior to a diverse group is equivalent to

>That you don't see it is framed as a question. To restate: "I'm not sure how saying that a non diverse group is inferior to a diverse group is equivalent to saying that the specific elements making up the non diverse group is inferior[. Could you please clarify]?" Thought it was implied. Sorry to be unclear. >Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is. I'd ask you which mental hoops led you to think it isn't but I know every single one of them will be a fallacy so I won't bother asking. You haven't added anything here, just restated your original thinking that I don't get. Here's what makes sense to me: 1 + 1 = 2 1 < 2 1 = 1 >You don't get to tell me which definitions to use. And I'm not reading some rant rationalizing why racism and sexism is good based on the target. It's not that there are more than one competing definition. There are several complimentary ones and ignoring the rest does not promote better discussion. If you read the third link, that's so not an accurate assessment of it's contents.

julianmarq 9y ago
> 1 + 1 = 2 1 < 2 1 = 1 No, no, you're doing a false equivalency. This is what you're saying: 1+1=2 but 2>2 if the second 1 is of a different race/sex/orientation/etc. > It's not that there are more than one competing definition. There are several complimentary ones and ignoring the rest does not promote better discussion. ... According to you.
- selllikesybok 9y ago
  If you assume I mean, contrary to my intent, that the units are individuals rather than groups, perhaps. To restate again, for clarity: 1 type + 1 type = 2 types 2 types > 1 type 1 type = 1 type How is this false? --- I am not sure what to say to your second point. I didn't make up the definitions, or the way language works.
  - julianmarq 9y ago
    > 1 type + 1 type = 2 types > 2 types > 1 type > 1 type = 1 type Yep, that is good and I agree with that, I'll let it pass that i wasn't what you were saying earlier giving the context. But it still doesn't justify postponing/cancelling something just because it's "1", it's discrimination against that "1". > I am not sure what to say to your second point. I didn't make up the definitions, or the way language works. I'm not arguing that the definitions exist. I'm arguing your assessment that only using a particular one stifles discussion.
    - selllikesybok 9y ago
      >Yep, that is good and I agree with that, I'll let it pass that i wasn't what you were saying earlier giving the context. But it is what I said. >But it still doesn't justify postponing/cancelling something just because it's "1", it's discrimination against that "1". As to whether it is appropriate to postpone or cancel the event, I'd say that's up to the organizers, their goals, etc. If they specifically only want to put on a >=2 event, and they cannot, the justification seems adequate. I'm not sure how, in that context, it equated to discrimination. I'd expect them to have cancelled regardless of the "1" in question, in this case.
    - selllikesybok 9y ago
      >I'm not arguing that the definitions exist. I'm arguing your assessment that only using a particular one stifles discussion. You said, if I understood correctly, that the definitions meaning "there are essential qualities applicable to all members of a group" was the only relevant definition for purposes of this discussion. I said, no, the other definitions are complementary, and must be considered. You said no, they should not be considered. I am unclear on how this is not stifling to the discussion.

julianmarq 9y ago

> 1 + 1 = 2 1 < 2 1 = 1 No, no, you're doing a false equivalency. This is what you're saying: 1+1=2 but 2>2 if the second 1 is of a different race/sex/orientation/etc. > It's not that there are more than one competing definition. There are several complimentary ones and ignoring the rest does not promote better discussion. ... According to you.

selllikesybok 9y ago
If you assume I mean, contrary to my intent, that the units are individuals rather than groups, perhaps. To restate again, for clarity: 1 type + 1 type = 2 types 2 types > 1 type 1 type = 1 type How is this false? --- I am not sure what to say to your second point. I didn't make up the definitions, or the way language works.
- julianmarq 9y ago
  > 1 type + 1 type = 2 types > 2 types > 1 type > 1 type = 1 type Yep, that is good and I agree with that, I'll let it pass that i wasn't what you were saying earlier giving the context. But it still doesn't justify postponing/cancelling something just because it's "1", it's discrimination against that "1". > I am not sure what to say to your second point. I didn't make up the definitions, or the way language works. I'm not arguing that the definitions exist. I'm arguing your assessment that only using a particular one stifles discussion.
  - selllikesybok 9y ago
    >Yep, that is good and I agree with that, I'll let it pass that i wasn't what you were saying earlier giving the context. But it is what I said. >But it still doesn't justify postponing/cancelling something just because it's "1", it's discrimination against that "1". As to whether it is appropriate to postpone or cancel the event, I'd say that's up to the organizers, their goals, etc. If they specifically only want to put on a >=2 event, and they cannot, the justification seems adequate. I'm not sure how, in that context, it equated to discrimination. I'd expect them to have cancelled regardless of the "1" in question, in this case.
  - selllikesybok 9y ago
    >I'm not arguing that the definitions exist. I'm arguing your assessment that only using a particular one stifles discussion. You said, if I understood correctly, that the definitions meaning "there are essential qualities applicable to all members of a group" was the only relevant definition for purposes of this discussion. I said, no, the other definitions are complementary, and must be considered. You said no, they should not be considered. I am unclear on how this is not stifling to the discussion.