| > That’s not even the same structure as ‘all men are evil.’ Indeed it is not. I merely separately disagreed with that the statement “All men are evil.” would also by necessity be interpreted as such. Either can be, depending on context, but this is not such a context. > Instead what you wrote is gendered and thus completely inaccurate.* You seem to be of the minority that has interpreted it as such. I would not quickly use votes for an argument except when they pertain to popular opinion, and this is a matter of which interpretation is more common. I certainly didn't mean any gendered statement, and I also believe that most readers did not read any gender into it. > So again, you could have used ‘people’ to be respectful and inclusive but you’re choosing to stick with ‘man’ because that’s what you know. I could, and you could also change your language to avoid any and all possible ambiguities that would not be a problem in practice due to the power of contextual inference. You seem to ask that this specific word be given special treatment above all others. > That’s unkind. You know that this is an issue within our community but you are fully choosing to go against the norms because of ‘your language’? Such as here, the word “our community” is quite vague. You used the word “our” which is ambiguous in English as it's unclear whether it includes the listener or not, and on top of that also what it includes. I can however perfectly well infer from context that this is an “our” that includes the listener, and can make a reasonable guess to the extent of the “community” you refer to. Finally, do not know that it is “an issue” and I certainly do not know that there are “norms” about this. It very much seems that the majority sides with me on this issue given the votes, at least here. I do not believe I am going against any norms, not that I would consider an argumentum ad populum a strong one, but you were the one that raised it here. > I’m sorry but I thought we could have a conversation. This many replies in and I realize that you don’t actually have much sympathy, understanding or even basic caring. Well, frankness be, it seems from your language as though your default expectation is that your arbitrary wims, at least on this particular issue should be accommodated, and that everyone who disagrees with you is unkind or lacks sympathy. You call it a conversation, but it seems as though you started it from the assumption that you are right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong. > Be better. It’s easy. It is your opinion that this is better that this is better indeed. Not everyone has to agree with you on that matter, and not everyone does. |
However, you’re a beautiful writer and beautiful writers can cause immeasurable pain. I’ll always speak out in case another minority of one feels pain but is too ??? to speak out.
Seriously, take good care. This has been a wonderful thread and again, you’re a really beautiful writer. :)