• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15 hours ago

      You seem to have missed my point.

      In common parlance you don’t need to qualify generalisations when it’s obvious to the audience that they are generalisations.

      Consider a statement like “Australians like to eat Vegemite on toast for breakfast”.

      It’s an absurdity to refute that statement on the basis that it’s an unqualified generalisation. It’s very obvious to everyone that not every Australian enjoys Vegemite, and that some Australian’s probably enjoy Vegemite at other times of the day. The whole point of the sentence is to convey that Australians are more likely to enjoy Vegemite than people of other nations.

      If you’d like to spend your life refuting every general assertion on the basis that it’s not qualified by saying “some” Australians enjoy Vegemite then I guess you’re welcome to do so, but it seems like a very odd proclivity to me.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13 minutes ago

            Weren’t you trolling on another part of the thread? I already forgave you, but you’re back at it with more conversational terrorism. What’s with the dark patterns, friend? You some sort of bad actor type?

            As for your question, I am neither. I am a genetically modified oak leaf that has gained sentience (unrelated to the genetic modification - that only made me glow in the dark) and manipulated a pack of squirrels to steal a cell phone from a hiker, typing for me in exchange for acorns and the occassional drip of morning dew.