Icelander said:

The modern human objectifies just about everything outside themselves. Think about it.

---

Quote:

I've met strippers who seem very self-empowered, yet when I think of how guys view them, I wonder how self-empowering their work really is. I see women paraded around like pieces of meat in rap videos and TV commercials, and just shake my head.

---

fireworks_god said:

Firstly, I do not believe the media has that much influence

---

Quote:

You make it seem as though you are speaking with absolute terms when doing so makes your statements false.

---

fireworks_god said:

"Humans" is a term that represents all humans. Simple. It was not "Men generally...", it was "Men".

---

fireworks_god said:

Exactly. People who have had a leg amputated or perhaps not born with a leg are still humans. As the word "humans" is all-inclusive, it would be false to make general statements that refer to most humans, but to not qualify the difference with words like "most".

---

Corporal Kielbasa said:

Then what is your intent?

---

My intent is not open for discussion in this thread.

aryah said:

ok I agree thats a more rigorous and precise way of expression, but I must point that this semantical interpretation of the claim 'humans have 2 legs' as fully all-encompassing and not just a general statement thats, mostly true, is not accepted by all, so is perhaps interpreting the posters statement wrongly

---

The statement stands for itself - that is why we use words with consensual meaning. If I proclaim that humans wear black sweaters, and there is a human being that does not wear black sweaters, then the statement "humans wear black sweaters" is false. If I were to ask "Do all humans have two legs?" then the answer is no. One doesn't reply back "No, I meant generally do humans have two legs?" because one would say that the first time.

It is not a matter of incorrectly interpreting the statement - it is a matter of the original poster failing to properly convey their intended meaning through improper use of language.

fireworks_god said:

The statement stands for itself - that is why we use words with consensual meaning. If I proclaim that humans wear black sweaters, and there is a human being that does not wear black sweaters, then the statement "humans wear black sweaters" is false. If I were to ask "Do all humans have two legs?" then the answer is no. One doesn't reply back "No, I meant generally do humans have two legs?" because one would say that the first time.

It is not a matter of incorrectly interpreting the statement - it is a matter of the original poster failing to properly convey their intended meaning through improper use of language.

---

aryah said:

A meaning is a function of a context, and not fixed by the definition of a word or syntax of a sentence alone.

---

Quote:

I should also note that the meaning of 'generally' is not equivalent to 'mostly' or to 'some', it implies it being the case as a rule, in principle, so implying paradoxicly to this kind of formalistic thinking that something being true as a rule precisely means there are exeptions and yet is a valid generalization, for more than numbers.

---

Quote:

I particularly fail to see why would it be banned to explan and correct ones expression further; what insight does one gain by such limitation but halting in awe by the obvious and rather irrelevant fact that someones expression was less than 100% exact, like such way of communicating would even be desirable in the first place...

---

Quote:

Regardless, you aren't speaking for men and women as a whole, so you shouldn't create a false sense of doing so by neglecting to use words such as "some".

---

If one is interested in conveying one's point, it is benefical to accurately represent that point. I sought for the matter to be clarified and it was, by his subsequent use of the phrase "'some' humans". In fact, I'm now aware of the fact that he had already clarified that he was referring to "most" humans, so I'm not sure what you are ranting on about, as I sought clarification on the matter and he made a point of expressing that he was only referring to most humans. I could have paid more attention to what I was replying to, but both were interested in conveying and understanding the exact point, which means that your arguement isn't very apt, as people who are interested in getting to the heart of the matter will seek to use language effectively.

fireworks_god said:

Yet it was unclear in the context outlined that it was not being intended as an absolute statement

---

Quote:

It means that it is usually true, thus the term defines that there are exceptions. For example, "for the most part" is a phrased used to define the word "generally". When one is speaking in general terms, it is most effective to express that one is speaking in general terms. Simple.

---

Quote:

What are you even talking about? This is what I said:

---

no I was refering to this:

If I were to ask "Do all humans have two legs?" then the answer is no. One doesn't reply back "No, I meant generally do humans have two legs?" because one would say that the first time.

that left me a bit perplexed

Quote:

I sought for the matter to be clarified and it was, by his subsequent use of the phrase "'some' humans". In fact, I'm now aware of the fact that he had already clarified that he was referring to "most" humans, so I'm not sure what you are ranting on about,

---

Quote:

I was replying to, but both were interested in conveying and understanding the exact point, which means that your arguement isn't very apt, as people who are interested in getting to the heart of the matter will seek to use language effectively.

---