[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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:

       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

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 sanders

Reply to: