Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 07:10:31AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 06:39:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > yes, go ahead and chop out the line "there is a difference" which makes
> > the point. i'll repeat it because you seem to want to ignore it: there
> > is a difference between ignoring something (passive discrimination at
> > worst), and active discrimination.
>
> It must be wonderful to have a dictionary that says exactly what you want.
> As for me, I'll stick with established sources.
>
> Discrimination \Dis*crim`i*na"tion\ (?), n. [L. discriminatio
> the contrasting of opposite thoughts.]
> 1. The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and
> marking differences.
your dictionary must be quite limited (or you are deliberately ignoring
all other definitions which don't suit your argument). it doesn't even
mention the usage of 'discrimination' in a legal context, where it means
prejudicial action. of course, to give you the benefit of the doubt, a
lot can change in 87 years and your definition is a truncated version of
the first one from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913).
try this definition, from WordNet:
discrimination
n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of
prejudice [syn: {favoritism}, {favouritism}]
> If we accept the definition above (which, admittedly, you probably
> don't), then there is no such thing as passive discrimination. Since
> discrimination is an "act", it is by definition an "active" process.
> Natch.
i accept that that it is ONE of the common definitions of the word
'discrimination'.
however, i have no time to waste on high-school level circular arguments.
you'll have to find someone else to play.
> > congratulations! you missed the point entirely.
>
> How about some content with that condescention? Which "point", exactly,
> was missed?
the point that you apparently missed too. go back and read my message.
i even spelt out the point in the final paragraph, which is why i was
surprised that it was missed.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: