Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
If the assertion is true by definition, then we are not talking about the definition, but rather the effects of the definition on real life.
If you want to use a broad term, then you need to stop appealing to the emotional "loaded definition" when you evoke that term. In other words, if you are broadening the definition of "segregation" to make a bike lane "segregated" by definition, then you cannot simultaniously make the argument that bike lanes are bad because they are "segregated."
Either "segregated" evokes visions of Jim Crow and the like, with then narrows the definition such that bike lanes are not "segregated" (narrow definition) by definition. Or "segregated" is broadened to the classic use of the term, in which case bike lanes are neither good nor bad simply because they are "segregated" in the broad sense.
You cannot have this both ways. Either way, you have yet to establish that your "social implications" of "segregation" (narrow definition) apply to this particular form of "segregation" (broad, or common definition). Your arguments to this end are the arguments which are extremely weak.
For the sake of lessening confusion, here are the definitions you are faliciously using interchangeably:
seg·re·ga·tion (sĕg'rĭ-gā'shən)
n.
1. (broad, or common definition) The act or process of segregating or the condition of being segregated.
2. (narrow definition) The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.
(from Answers.com, the "broad" and "narrow" designations are mine)
I have always consistently used and meant the first, broad, definition, of course. That bike lanes are segregated facilities is not even a question. Again, it's true by definition. The issue is and always was whether that segregation is a good thing or not.
Now, to that point, the argument that bicyclist segregration is problematic for some of the same reasons that "narrow" segregation is problematic is arguable, and bridges the two definitions. Perhaps that's where the confusion lies?
There have been segregation (broad sense) experiments, where, for example, a teacher would segregate a class according to eye color, treating the blue eyed kids separately from the brown eyed kids.
Within hours the kids would start demonstrating prejudicial views about each other based on eye color. Do not underestimate the power of officially sanctioned segregation.