4 ms·

Nowhere on their about page do they make it clear that they also have restaurants who are not their partners listed on their platform. The given ask that there

Nowhere on their about page do they make it clear that they also have restaurants who are not their partners listed on their platform. The given ask that there is a clear disclaimer. I’m saying it’s not clear at all, and therefore the hypothetical has deviated from reality so much that it’s useless.

loceng 6y ago
No, you're just not accepting in the statement you wrote what you claim it means is incorrect - you're now trying to double down that it's not clear but it is clear, you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely as your argument point but through extrapolation it's not necessary, assuming you're able to/have learned how to extrapolate. You really want everyone everywhere on the internet to spell out the complete logic, when the full logic can be understood simply by extrapolating, coddling people in the process?
- SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
  > you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely Yes because that’s what “clear disclaimer” means, which was the ask. I’m really baffled that this line of logic, because the post I was responding to said “clear disclaimer”, when I’m pointing to something that requires second-order interpretation and therefore by definition can’t be a clear disclaimer. (I mean you yourself said that it’s understood by extrapolation. Requiring extrapolation =! clear disclaimer imo. I would in fact expect a clear disclaimer to require no extrapolation, and be so dumbly explained that anyone who can read at at teen level can understand it.)
  - loceng 6y ago
    You're changing the goal posts of your argument now. You claimed the statement was a lie, it wasn't - that is all I argued.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
      Oh, okay, I’ve edited my post to say that “this is not a clear disclaimer”.
      - refulgentis 6y ago
        Please try to avoid dragging interlocutors through long threads, knowing they'll be downvoted at each step - it was extremely clear from step 1 what they meant, you didn't need it clarified over several comments to reach this conclusion.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- jimktrains2 6y ago
  These are often termed lies of ommission, where details are left out to make what is said appear to be the full truth, and not just a slice of it. By only stating that they work with partners, they imply that they only work with partners.
- ScoobleDoodle 6y ago
  “Partner” implies agreed upon consent. The assumption from the grub hub text is that all restaurants on their platform are “partners” and have therefore consented. The two possible omissions are: 1) “partners” does not actually mean consent. 2) They have other restaurants on their platform who are not “partners”, but they have the largest “partner” network even without those unconsenting restaurants. Both are deceitful of the common reading of the language which implies both consent and that their platform serves only the group mentioned. It’s leveraging omission and ambiguity to communicate a false hood. 90% of people read it they way grub hub is not using the phrasing.
  - loceng 6y ago
    No, you're making an assumption and misinterpreting the sentence as well - they're not saying all restaurants on their platform in the statement we're referencing are partners. I agree them saying there are partners doesn't define what that means, nor if they said they "work with restaurants." That still doesn't mean it's valid to believe assumptions are truth when you don't know the answer.
    - ScoobleDoodle 6y ago
      In English, by calling out a specific subject in the sentence that is the implied and assumed context. Not more and not less. Unless clarified in preceding or subsequent sentences. Otherwise everything needs a qualifier all of the time which would make communication annoying, overly verbose, and burdensome. We do this to get along in the world and with each other. This is why it is correct to consider Grubhub dishonest or incompetent. They are using an alternate meaning, which is not common usage, by leaving out the necessary qualifiers to communicate what they actually mean. By your misinterpretation of this I’d guess you deal with rigorous systems and strive towards clarity. That is fine but not how common language is used. Grub hubs language here is exploiting not using common standards to veil their intended and unexpected meaning in language the reader will find positive because of their common interpretation, which is false information because grubhub means something non-standard.

loceng 6y ago

No, you're just not accepting in the statement you wrote what you claim it means is incorrect - you're now trying to double down that it's not clear but it is clear, you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely as your argument point but through extrapolation it's not necessary, assuming you're able to/have learned how to extrapolate. You really want everyone everywhere on the internet to spell out the complete logic, when the full logic can be understood simply by extrapolating, coddling people in the process?

SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
> you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely Yes because that’s what “clear disclaimer” means, which was the ask. I’m really baffled that this line of logic, because the post I was responding to said “clear disclaimer”, when I’m pointing to something that requires second-order interpretation and therefore by definition can’t be a clear disclaimer. (I mean you yourself said that it’s understood by extrapolation. Requiring extrapolation =! clear disclaimer imo. I would in fact expect a clear disclaimer to require no extrapolation, and be so dumbly explained that anyone who can read at at teen level can understand it.)
- loceng 6y ago
  You're changing the goal posts of your argument now. You claimed the statement was a lie, it wasn't - that is all I argued.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
    Oh, okay, I’ve edited my post to say that “this is not a clear disclaimer”.
    - refulgentis 6y ago
      Please try to avoid dragging interlocutors through long threads, knowing they'll be downvoted at each step - it was extremely clear from step 1 what they meant, you didn't need it clarified over several comments to reach this conclusion.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
jimktrains2 6y ago
These are often termed lies of ommission, where details are left out to make what is said appear to be the full truth, and not just a slice of it. By only stating that they work with partners, they imply that they only work with partners.
ScoobleDoodle 6y ago
“Partner” implies agreed upon consent. The assumption from the grub hub text is that all restaurants on their platform are “partners” and have therefore consented. The two possible omissions are: 1) “partners” does not actually mean consent. 2) They have other restaurants on their platform who are not “partners”, but they have the largest “partner” network even without those unconsenting restaurants. Both are deceitful of the common reading of the language which implies both consent and that their platform serves only the group mentioned. It’s leveraging omission and ambiguity to communicate a false hood. 90% of people read it they way grub hub is not using the phrasing.
- loceng 6y ago
  No, you're making an assumption and misinterpreting the sentence as well - they're not saying all restaurants on their platform in the statement we're referencing are partners. I agree them saying there are partners doesn't define what that means, nor if they said they "work with restaurants." That still doesn't mean it's valid to believe assumptions are truth when you don't know the answer.
  - ScoobleDoodle 6y ago
    In English, by calling out a specific subject in the sentence that is the implied and assumed context. Not more and not less. Unless clarified in preceding or subsequent sentences. Otherwise everything needs a qualifier all of the time which would make communication annoying, overly verbose, and burdensome. We do this to get along in the world and with each other. This is why it is correct to consider Grubhub dishonest or incompetent. They are using an alternate meaning, which is not common usage, by leaving out the necessary qualifiers to communicate what they actually mean. By your misinterpretation of this I’d guess you deal with rigorous systems and strive towards clarity. That is fine but not how common language is used. Grub hubs language here is exploiting not using common standards to veil their intended and unexpected meaning in language the reader will find positive because of their common interpretation, which is false information because grubhub means something non-standard.