this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
281 points (100.0% liked)

science

17719 readers
292 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Howsabout just putting the word "Some" at the start, to remove all ambiguity?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is that sentence structure ambiguous?

If you said "Iron Age men fought with Iron Swords" you wouldn't say that statement is clearly false because it's not true of all iron age men.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean, I would. I'm sure there were at least a few flint axes still in use

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I miss every point, I'm far too fast

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Are you a child physically, or just mentally?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

No i wasn't. You're the child trolling in this post as a response to everyone rightfully telling you you're wrong.

I never asked for your forgiveness. I couldn't care less what you think of me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

That is very rude of you, I've already told you I am a sentient oak leaf and yet you continuously refer to me as a child. Why the bigotry? Please desist the harassment, friend.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because people can figure that out by a combination of using a bit of common sense and reading the article in any doubt. And I say "people" even though there's at least one person who can't, and people will understand anyway.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

It's not well and good to assume that common sense is a real thing, seeing the amount of maroons congregating since the proliferation of the Internet. People are easily led, misled, outraged or cowed. Case in point, Flat Earthers