Just in case this isn’t a bit: OP, the structure in English should be “adjective noun.” The opposite to most romantic languages where you say the noun then the description word. So a cat girl is a girl (assumed human) that can be described as a cat (has the traits of a cat). A girl cat is more reasonably a cat that is a girl, though you’d probably say “female cat” more often. For allergies you’d want to look into hypoallergenic cats like the hairless sphynx.

That’s not the same logic though. His logic is “Noun A is part of noun AB, that does not mean noun AB is equal to or a subset of A.” While the way you’re interpreting it is “Noun A is part of noun AB, thus AB is not equal to and not a subset of A.” The important part is that his logic only dictates that the relationship between A and AB are independent of eachother, while your interpretation states that A depends on AB in an inverse manner. Ie: “We cannot say popcorn is or is not corn based on name alone,” vs “popcorn cannot be corn because corn is in the name.”

Not taking a side on social justice, the logical comparison you attempted just bothered me. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

It’s really got the same vibe as constantly comparing someone to your ex.

I’d like to go one step further and propose that the amount people are affected by nurture is part of their nature. Person A may be born with murder tendencies and grow up into a murderer no matter what, even while being raised watching Mr Rogers. While Person B may be born with murder tendencies but may only grow into a murderer if growing up in a murder enabling environment like Detroit or being filthy rich.