[diggan]

> This is universal lmao

It is not universal. Not sure why you'd claim so unless you've looked up the laws for every country.

One example, Sweden:

> 23 kap. 12 § rättegångsbalken (https://lagen.nu/1942:740#K23P12S1)

> Under förhör må ej i syfte att framkalla bekännelse eller uttalande i viss riktning användas medvetet oriktiga uppgifter, löften eller förespeglingar om särskilda förmåner, hot, tvång, uttröttning eller andra otillbörliga åtgärder [...]

Meaning, the one who is doing the interrogation is not allowed to "use deliberate misrepresentation, promises or promises of special benefits, threats, coercion, hardship or other improper measures.", basically not allowed to lie.

How it works usually works out in practice, is most likely different though. I've only been to one interrogation with Swedish police and they definitely lied about a bunch of stuff.

I'm sure there are other countries where the police isn't allowed to lie either.

[coldtea]

>It is not universal. Not sure why you'd claim so unless you've looked up the laws for every country.

Probably because humans are not formal proof automata. When the parent said universal they meant "it is a thing across the world and across periods", and not "no X exists, where X is a country, and in X it's against the law".

[diggan]

Ah, maybe it's my non-native English-ness that shines through, but I've always understood "universal" as something implies like it is everyone, not "just in some places".

So I could accurately say "English language is universal" even though there are countries where people generally don't speak English at all?

[PawgerZ]

This would be an example of "absolutes." Using an absolute will usually make your sentence incorrect; "never" and "always" are rarely true. When writing something formal--essays, news, research papers--you should try not to use absolutes.

While absolutes shouldn't be used for formal writings, English speakers will very often use them in casual settings. I itallicized some spots where I could have used absolutes, and if you replace those words with "never" or "always", I think you'll understand what I'm saying better.

> "English language is universal"

This is an absolute or hypberbole, but most native speakers will understand what the author meant by that.

[coldtea]

>So I could accurately say "English language is universal" even though there are countries where people generally don't speak English at all?

In math or formal logic, no. In casual english all the time.

Here is an example from the dictionary for universal, that's not actually formally universal:

(a) One reason for the author's success is that her novels have a universal appeal.

Obviously not everyone, even if they do read a lot of novels, would like the author's novels, or even the genre they are in. Some will also just hate them.

Or how about:

(b) Love and relationships will always be a topic of universal interest.

(c) Music is often thought of as a universal language.

There are of course absolutely people who don't care for "love and relationships" or are totally indifferent to music.

Or here's an example from a blog:

https://www.thelanguagegallery.com/blog/why-has-english-beco...

"According to statistics shared by Babbel Magazine, the English language is spoken by 20% of the world’s population. Apart from being one of the most popular languages in the world, English is also the most commonly studied foreign language. Before we learn how it became a universal language"

Note how they call it "universal" even though just spoken by 20% of the people at best.

In general universal in such contexts means "quite common or prevalent, within different population groups (even if the groups belong to a specific type)", e.g.:

"the Latin language (qua Medieval Latin) was in effect a universal language of literati in the Middle Ages"

"In a more practical fashion, trade languages, such as ancient Koine Greek, may be seen as a kind of real universal language, that was used for commerce" (note that the Koine "universal" language was just spoken in the regions around the Mediterranean, North Africa, and Middle East).

(both examples from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_language )

[fullarr]

We are talking past each other.

There are two truths:

1. It is forbidden by law in many places (including the US).

2. They will get away with it regardless, in nearly every case. So often that practically speaking it's allowed

[diggan]

> We are talking past each other.

Well, be more clear and maybe we could avoid it :) In some US states, the police are legally allowed to lie, it's not forbidden for them to do so. In some other states and outside countries, they are allowed, in others, they're not.

[skrebbel]

Was it so hard just to lead with this?

[Anthony-G]

Indeed. That was a much better response – and there was no call for laughing their ass off at a genuine question. They may have been laughing at the concept of a police force that doesn’t lie to citizens but it still came across as a rude response.

[the-dude]

Not a Swede, but I wouldn't be surprised if the police is allowed to lie about for example which evidence they have.

The sentence you refer to seems to refer to 'pressurization'.