2 ms·
I wholeheartedly agree that implication is important. That's why the interpretation of the original comment you have made in this reply chain is ineffective. It
by manfredo 8y ago
I wholeheartedly agree that implication is important. That's why the interpretation of the original comment you have made in this reply chain is ineffective. It fails to adhere to the commonly understood implication that unspecified references to a group refers to the majority or the norm - not every single member of that group.
"Dogs have four legs" != "Every single dog that exists has four legs"
- WalterBright 8y agoIn fact, the entire reason we have qualifications like "all" and "every single" is because the word by itself refers to the norm.
- romwell 8y agoSure, sure. The following is just as true then: >For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. Men don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength. Because, as you say, dogs =/= all dogs (and men =/= all men).
- manfredo 8y agoSure. The statement that, "men don't have the lower body strength to do it" is true. That has no impact on the veracity of the original claim that, "women don't have the lower body strength to do it".