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

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?



sort by: page size:

Still not sure I understand the "clearly distinct" in relation to what the OP objects against.

A distinction without a difference?

A distinction without a difference?

distinct?

What makes you think that the two are distinct?

How is this not a difference without a distinction?

Not the same. "Distinct from X" means that it can be distinguished from X; "very different from X" means that it's hard to mistake it for X.

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

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

Distinction without a difference maybe?

That implies there ARE distinct things, doesn't it?

Distinct as in doing different things or distinct as in prefer batching? My English seems to be failing me here.

"A distinction without a difference"

distinction without a difference

Distinction without a difference

A distinction without a difference

A difference without a distinction

The distinction really matters?

Isn’t that a distinction without a difference?
next

Legal | privacy