Well, in this particular conversation, ultimately came down to a misunderstanding of the definitions of the words used.
but, like I said earlier, it lets you explore exactly why, and how, a burger can be ruined. Both making a burger too raw, and burning a burger, makes it no longer a functional Burger. But they cause that through different means. If I burn a burger, it is because I overcooked it. If I Serv a burger wrong, it is because I didn't cook it enough.
the same mistakes do not actually apply to one another, in that respect, and similarly, the same response to preventing said actions do not apply.
I cannot prevent a burnt burger, for example, by cooking it further. I cannot prevent a raw burger, by not cooking it.
Practically speaking, yes, both burgers are equally inedible. But the finer details between them tell you a lot more about them and what to watch out for.
Though, I'm not really all that sure why this argument is really relevant to, anyway. I think I ended up bringing it up as an example mostly to say that regardless of the moral implications of two particular groups, 1 is 1, and the other is the other.
I don't really remember, though, and I have to go back.
>Does that make sense?
Kind of? I mean, it gets some of it. It kind of depends on context.
Certainly I could see the argument for, as an example, not bothering to distinguish between the various different type of hadjis in the middle of some war in the middle East, as it were.
the problem is more when you have two very different types of people that potentially can cause two very different types of damage, whom both require different strategies.