4 ms·

I reread this three times, and what a contrived way to look at the world. You are the one coming up with all these labels, and trying to project it into other p

I reread this three times, and what a contrived way to look at the world. You are the one coming up with all these labels, and trying to project it into other people's arguments. Let me play the same game: I know a black guy who is president. Does that mean all black men are political? What about the one who just wants to play sports. Will we now call him an athletic black man, instead of just a black man... You can generate endless arguments like this depending on your choice of anecdote and label.

mrow84 8y ago
My summary of the most recent comments in this thread: Dirlewanger: group X have property Y arandr0x: members of group X without property Y might be offended by "group X have property Y" courir: as a member of group X without property Y I'm not offended by "most members of group X have property Y" arandr0x: <a reiteration of the previous comment> ramblerman: <rhetorically> does saying a member of group X has property Y mean all members of group X have property Y? I think you (ramblerman) have logically inverted the main claim, which is why it doesn't seem to make sense. Behaviour in line with arandr0x' comment seems perfectly reasonable to me - few people take well to poorly fitting generalisations.