> If no, then I have no further questions. We seem to have a very different understanding of what discrimination is. No, we don't. You already understood that

> If no, then I have no further questions. We seem to have a very different understanding of what discrimination is. No, we don't. You already understood that my point is it's confusing to use the term in a context where it has another meaning, without disambiguating. > If yes, what are the fundamental differences between this hypothetical situation and the real world situation of lower minimum wages for younger people? If there wouldn't be the confusion then I wouldn't bring up the confusion. > Why would you consider one to be discriminatory and the other to not be? You're missing the point. There are some things we allow and some things we don't. E.g. 3 year olds can't drive. Would you consider that to be discrimination? The answer is "Who cares - we were just talking about avoiding using terms with multiple meanings in written conversation."