Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnarn | Hacker News Reader

Sweden passed the law in 1991 and joined the EU in 1995 — and as usual, stating "this exists in country X" is not insinuating "this only exists in country X".

View on HN

FWIW, I was actually, honestly wondering whether this is now an EU rule. Didn't know Sweden initiated this, good for you guys, obviously it's a fairly advanced society so one would expect a lot of the good EU ideas come from you. But I was merely wondering if it was just mimicked everywhere, or it is now a formal EU rule (I suspect the latter since unfortunately our politicians are not quick to adopt good ideas, unless said ideas are somehow forced on them)

You’re being over sensitive I think. The reply isn’t “correcting” you - it actually adds information. Strictly speaking you are correct but generally if a fact is qualified by a restriction like “this exists in country X”, given there are around 200 countries in the world, it certainly implies there that country X is somewhat unusual in some regard. If you had claimed “in Sweden, cars have 4 wheels”, then I’d find it perfectly reasonable for someone to point out that it’s also the case in other countries.

> If you had claimed “in Sweden, cars have 4 wheels”

1. This is a dishonest comparison, because cars have 4 wheels by definition, while price labeling is very much differentiated across the globe.

2. Even if Sweden was one of only five countries in the world where cars have 4 wheels, saying "in Sweden, cars have 4 wheels" is still not the same thing as saying "Sweden is special, we have cars with four wheels, I bet no other countries do". The fact that you interpret it more as the latter says more about your own bias than what is stated in the text.

I’m being dishonest? It was an example to illustrate a simple point which has nothing to do with Sweden. Your 2nd point has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote and I’ve no idea how you inferred those claims unless you’re angry or upset.

Let me try one last time with an example. In this exchange, which party is being unreasonable; A: “in Switzerland, you have to pay for plastic bags in supermarkets”... B: “it’s the same in many other countries”... A: I NEVER CLAIMED SWITZERLAND WAS SPECIAL!!!

Again, you're characterizing me dishonestly, but at least this time you accurately described the situation. You're well aware that you changed the dialogue to make A sound unreasonable, instead of trying to understand why the point made by B could be understood as an unwarranted correction by A. I suggest we leave it at that because we will not agree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com