• @masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    49 days ago

    I explicitly said that it could be correct for the US in this instance but is incorrect as a general statement.

    • @Madison420
      link
      -39 days ago

      No one said it as a general statement, you had to add “always” to make it generalized.

      • @howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        59 days ago

        Did you not read the text in the image?

        A system that can elect a felon faster than it can prosecute him is fundamentally broken.

        • @Madison420
          link
          -4
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          It’s called inference dude.

          It’s phrased as any but it’s clearly a reference to the USA which is one country not all, not many, not several but a singular one. It would be a lack of reading comprehension to say it’s “any” or “all” which your article just confirmed for you.

          Now have a look back at my first comment and we’ll see if you can figure out what your actual point is.

          • @howrar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            You can infer additional information when that information isn’t present. Like if you say “A certain system that can […]”, then that sentence refers to a specific system but doesn’t say which. You can infer from context that it’s the US. But if you say “The US system, which can […]” then you cannot infer that “The US system” actually means the Canadian system because it’s clearly stated that it’s the US system. There’s no missing information to infer. In this case, it says “A system”. As you said, that means any system. All systems. We’re given complete information on the subject. There’s nothing to infer.

            Maybe what you’re thinking of is that the current context of this post is the recent US election, so the timing of this post is an implicit reference to that. But the reference isn’t meant to change the meaning of the statement. It’s used as evidence to support it. i.e. “This kind of system is bad in general. Look at this example in which it is bad.” and not “This kind of system is bad in general. But not in general.”

            Edit: Alternatively, there can be cases where you should interpret a sentence as something different from what was actually written, and that’s when you have reasonable cause to believe they meant the other thing. Here, both the general statement and one specifically about the US are statements that someone can reasonably make so most people will interpret the words exactly as written.

            • @Madison420
              link
              -59 days ago

              You can infer from context that it’s the US

              Duh

              then you cannot infer that “The US system” actually means the Canadian system because it’s clearly stated that it’s the US system. There’s no missing information to infer.

              That’s why I didn’t do that dipshit, you stated all, not me.

              Maybe what you’re thinking of is that the current context of this post is the recent US election, so the timing of this post is an implicit reference to that. But the reference isn’t meant to change the meaning of the statement. It’s used as evidence to support it. i.e. “This kind of system is bad in general. Look at this example in which it is bad.” and not “This kind of system is bad in general. But not in general.”

              That’s the additional info you absolute brickbrain.

              • @howrar@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                59 days ago

                That’s the additional info you absolute brickbrain.

                The criticism was about the generality, not the implicit evidence.

                • @Madison420
                  link
                  -39 days ago

                  No one is talking about it generally regardless of how its phrased. No one.