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.

I would increase the landmass on Earth such that the Earth itself was only 50% ocean. I would do so in a grand display of power utilizing some sort of ancient and supreme Titan, one that brings into undeniable question the foundation of all world religions and even evolution itself. Now having shown that I possess the power of a god. I would descend upon Israel and the surrounding lands and demand all of them migrate to one of the many new landmasses, so that I may reign in my new palace from a place of former conflict, symbolically showing that increasing the amount of landmass in the world helps end conflicts. Should any people resist, I shall simply displace them forcefully with a shower of Precipice Blades. The water displaced for the new land masses would be evaporated into the atmosphere, leaving behind a large amount of salt and eventually precipitating back down as fresh water. While in the atmosphere a large amount of the Earth would be covered in dense clouds cooling it and causing an Ice Age that staves off Global Warming, but creating harsh temporary conditions that the Israelites and Palestinians must learn to live and overcome together as they worship their new god… Me. Eventually power will corrupt me and I will grow tyrannical. Then the either binary son or daughter of an Israeli-Palestinian couple will stand up to me, capturing other beings of power to fight me in a grand battle, at the age of 10 uears old.

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.