| [reply] |
| [reply] |
So much that it needs to be mentioned and highlighted.
You mean, apart from the fact that I chose to emphasise it in support of my premise?
As for "what's wrong with artificial distinctions." Everything or nothing.
For the everything, consider the history of artificial distinctions. People of type XYZ are less human. People of religion XYZ are less...
Artificial is defined as: Man-made; of artifice; False, misleading; Unnatural. In this context, I'd simplify that as 'illogical'.
As long as you are making the distinction for your own purposes, there's nothing wrong. Just as when I chose not to make that distinction, there is nothing wrong.
Now re-read my post that you are trying so hard to pick an argument about. It simply says that if you (in the generic sense, not the you personally sense), elect to not make the artificial distinction, then you may find uses and usefulness in the low priority boolean operators, that outweights the need to exercise a little care in their use.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |