3 ms·

You’re being over sensitive I think. The reply isn’t “correcting” you - it actually adds information. Strictly speaking you are correct but generally if a fact

by derriz 7y ago

You’re being over sensitive I think. The reply isn’t “correcting” you - it actually adds information. Strictly speaking you are correct but generally if a fact is qualified by a restriction like “this exists in country X”, given there are around 200 countries in the world, it certainly implies there that country X is somewhat unusual in some regard. If you had claimed “in Sweden, cars have 4 wheels”, then I’d find it perfectly reasonable for someone to point out that it’s also the case in other countries.

hnarn 7y ago
> If you had claimed “in Sweden, cars have 4 wheels” 1. This is a dishonest comparison, because cars have 4 wheels by definition, while price labeling is very much differentiated across the globe. 2. Even if Sweden was one of only five countries in the world where cars have 4 wheels, saying "in Sweden, cars have 4 wheels" is still not the same thing as saying "Sweden is special, we have cars with four wheels, I bet no other countries do". The fact that you interpret it more as the latter says more about your own bias than what is stated in the text.
- derriz 7y ago
  I’m being dishonest? It was an example to illustrate a simple point which has nothing to do with Sweden. Your 2nd point has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote and I’ve no idea how you inferred those claims unless you’re angry or upset. Let me try one last time with an example. In this exchange, which party is being unreasonable; A: “in Switzerland, you have to pay for plastic bags in supermarkets”... B: “it’s the same in many other countries”... A: I NEVER CLAIMED SWITZERLAND WAS SPECIAL!!!
  - hnarn 7y ago
    Again, you're characterizing me dishonestly, but at least this time you accurately described the situation. You're well aware that you changed the dialogue to make A sound unreasonable, instead of trying to understand why the point made by B could be understood as an unwarranted correction by A. I suggest we leave it at that because we will not agree.

by derriz 7y ago

hnarn 7y ago

> If you had claimed “in Sweden, cars have 4 wheels” 1. This is a dishonest comparison, because cars have 4 wheels by definition, while price labeling is very much differentiated across the globe. 2. Even if Sweden was one of only five countries in the world where cars have 4 wheels, saying "in Sweden, cars have 4 wheels" is still not the same thing as saying "Sweden is special, we have cars with four wheels, I bet no other countries do". The fact that you interpret it more as the latter says more about your own bias than what is stated in the text.

derriz 7y ago
I’m being dishonest? It was an example to illustrate a simple point which has nothing to do with Sweden. Your 2nd point has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote and I’ve no idea how you inferred those claims unless you’re angry or upset. Let me try one last time with an example. In this exchange, which party is being unreasonable; A: “in Switzerland, you have to pay for plastic bags in supermarkets”... B: “it’s the same in many other countries”... A: I NEVER CLAIMED SWITZERLAND WAS SPECIAL!!!
- hnarn 7y ago
  Again, you're characterizing me dishonestly, but at least this time you accurately described the situation. You're well aware that you changed the dialogue to make A sound unreasonable, instead of trying to understand why the point made by B could be understood as an unwarranted correction by A. I suggest we leave it at that because we will not agree.