Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Legally distinct is not the same as chemically/biologically distinct.


sort by: page size:

While somewhat unique, the two are not seperable.

The implication was that they should be distinct but are not.

What makes you think that the two are distinct?

Yes, but it's not a distinction without a difference.

Indeed they do not exclude each other but they are also not the same thing.

A distinction without a difference?

A distinction without a difference?

distinct?

How is this not a difference without a distinction?

Sometimes, legally the two are indistinguishable.

Those terms are not interchangeable.

They aren’t synonymous?

A distinction isn't necessarily useful.

A difference without a distinction

How does one define "distinct"? When I hear the term "false equivalence" is used, it seems to be a stand in for selectively-favored arguments - even non sequiturs - rather than an objective evaluation of relevant differences. And when that doesn't work, the arguer would move the goalposts.

If we take the example given by gp, is there a relevant distinction between the between animal rights activists and corporations selling food in their respective right to boycott?


Where did you read ‘unique?’ They said ‘differentiated.’

A distinction without a meaningful difference.

Isn’t that a distinction without a difference?

Physically distinct could refer to distinct hardware in the same building and cage space. It’s “physically distinct”. Google makes no promises that the zones are in different buildings or separated by N feet/miles of space.
next

Legal | privacy