Bandorr said:
Ka-pi96 said:
So the issue is that you imagine "all"s where there aren't any?
|
The lack of context and subject leads to sloppy-ness. Combined with decades of experience with that sloppyness, tends to give me plenty of reason to suspect someone is shorthanding "all".
"Xbox live users are rude". Are you adding an all to that? I automatically add an all to that yes. "The users on xbox live that constantly cuss and insult me are rude" is vastly different. It is both clear in subject, and in context.
Leads to an interesting thread/poll. What do people read/think/infer when they see something like "Men are dogs" or "dogs are mean".
|
I'll give you my poll result, I would read it as SOME or possibly MOST but would hardly ever infer such statements meant ALL unless I was looking for a bogeyman or it was a statement that makes little sense otherwise and I struggle with an example but one would be "people that live normal lives are born with hearts" because you have to have a functioning heart to live a normal life.
If you are inferring ALL then here you are looking for racism in my opinion and not giving the benefit of the doubt to the poster that they have the logical facilities to understand:
1) people are people regardless of the color of their skin
2) at best you might find generalities for a group but are going to find very few universals besides death where ALL would be what you the reader should infer.
Not granting people in general the benefit of the doubt and automatically inferring ALL would seem to put you in a mindset that other people are inferior and don't understand what your superior intellect does ... if that's the case: Are you any better than a racist? same concept different manifestation of superiority