Hacker News Reader

Comment by strken | Hacker News Reader

Hang on, no, imagine if someone said "people eat meat" and it was the core part of an argument that people need a minimum of 2 acres of farmland to support their food consumption. It would be important to point out that vegetarians and vegans need less than an acre.

The context matters and blanket statements can be misleading in certain contexts.

View on HN

> and it was the core part of an argument that people need a minimum of 2 acres of farmland

Then we would be in an entirely different thread talking about something else? I was pointing out that trying to use “I refuse to understand what I read” as a dunk doesn’t really work. If you’re trying to say “What if I invent imaginary circumstances where I am right and you are wrong?” then yeah, I’d be helpless in that situation

Well, no, because in this case the difference between "many", "most", and "all" was unclear and was being used for rhetorical effect to support a contentious point.

You can't just make a broad assertion in support of your views and then complain "oh, I only meant a more narrow version" when people say it's too broad.

Similarly, if someone made an unclear point about meat consumption in support of their argument then it would and should be called out.

> Well, no

No to what? No, if somebody was making a totally different argument we wouldn’t be having a different conversation? Or no that I wouldn’t be proven wrong in your hypothetical where I’m wrong?

>You can't just make a broad assertion in support of your views and then complain "oh, I only meant a more narrow version" when people say it's too broad.

Lmao I’d ask what you mean by “you can’t clarify stuff” but

Stuff doesn't need to be clarified unless it's unclear. If stuff is unclear, and someone objects to the lack of clarity, and a clarification is offered, then surely the statement was NOT "fine as written".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com