I like the transition from “I have an issue with what you said” to “I have an issue with what I imagine you said” after getting clarification
That aside the statement was fine as written. For example it takes deliberate and active misunderstanding to twist the statement “people eat meat” into “there aren’t any vegetarians”
Hang on, no, imagine if someone said "people eat meat" and it was the core part of an argument that people need a minimum of 2 acres of farmland to support their food consumption. It would be important to point out that vegetarians and vegans need less than an acre.
The context matters and blanket statements can be misleading in certain contexts.
> and it was the core part of an argument that people need a minimum of 2 acres of farmland
Then we would be in an entirely different thread talking about something else? I was pointing out that trying to use “I refuse to understand what I read” as a dunk doesn’t really work. If you’re trying to say “What if I invent imaginary circumstances where I am right and you are wrong?” then yeah, I’d be helpless in that situation
Well, no, because in this case the difference between "many", "most", and "all" was unclear and was being used for rhetorical effect to support a contentious point.
You can't just make a broad assertion in support of your views and then complain "oh, I only meant a more narrow version" when people say it's too broad.
Similarly, if someone made an unclear point about meat consumption in support of their argument then it would and should be called out.
No to what? No, if somebody was making a totally different argument we wouldn’t be having a different conversation? Or no that I wouldn’t be proven wrong in your hypothetical where I’m wrong?
>You can't just make a broad assertion in support of your views and then complain "oh, I only meant a more narrow version" when people say it's too broad.
Lmao I’d ask what you mean by “you can’t clarify stuff” but
Stuff doesn't need to be clarified unless it's unclear. If stuff is unclear, and someone objects to the lack of clarity, and a clarification is offered, then surely the statement was NOT "fine as written".
If there was really nothing wrong with the original phrasing about rich people, then there's also nothing wrong with GP's phrasing about poor people. The usages are exactly parallel.
Wrapping an interrogation in a polite "just to clarify" and demanding point estimates and error bounds on a generalization is weaponized pedantry designed to derail the thread into an impossible burden of proof.
It is fair to question the framing "many wealthy think the poor are lazy" because what the audience actually hears is "the majority of the wealthy think the poor are lazy (and other people don't think that)" because otherwise the sentence wouldn't have singled out the wealthy.
Is it really the majority? And if it is, is that belief limited to the wealthy or do the middle class also think that? What do the poor think?
(1) just to clarify isn’t meant to be polite, I’m trying to get GP to clarify his belief
(2) I don’t care about citations - I want GP to clarify his belief
(3) GP is using something similar to a Motte and Bailey to make a generalized statement about a group of people. They can argue against all wealthy people and retreat to “I didn’t mean all” with any argument that lands, without sacrificing the castle. This is a commonly used tactic when making generalizations about racial and social groups.
