Yes? With sufficient pedantic spirit anything can be argued against. This is what you're doing. So to give a counter-example: You drive with three friends in a car. You ask them: "Do we all want to go to MC Donald's?"
Explain how it is wrong and why it would be. If it is always wrong it follows it has to be wrong here too. The answer is that the meaning of "we all" is context dependent and that friend of yours that argues that we all somehow includes people in the whole city is an oddball that doesn't pick up the context within the words have been said.
We can all go around and make each others day worse with deliberate pedantry by ignoring the context of words, but that is basically just a waste of human energy. If you disagree with the fundamental point I made, argue against it based on the merits of the idea instead of arguing semantics.
This reads like a tired response not even engaging with the point. What amount of detail would relay to you "human energy"?
You don't even engage with the original argument, you skip past it and claim "we all, collectively" without understanding the meaning of the words, and absolutely they matter.
You do it again with me with the lame "McDonald's". My advice to you is to stop railroading a conversation. It never works. Unless you only want to speak to people like cassianoleal or hgoel.
Explain how it is wrong and why it would be. If it is always wrong it follows it has to be wrong here too. The answer is that the meaning of "we all" is context dependent and that friend of yours that argues that we all somehow includes people in the whole city is an oddball that doesn't pick up the context within the words have been said.
We can all go around and make each others day worse with deliberate pedantry by ignoring the context of words, but that is basically just a waste of human energy. If you disagree with the fundamental point I made, argue against it based on the merits of the idea instead of arguing semantics.