What does "In General" mean to you?

[Aetherous]

Yes, so there are different classes/groups of women under headings such as 'women in bars' and so on ... in every case 'in general' means 'most of' or 'the majority' of that class.

 

Not in every case. That's your opinion of what it means, which is actually wrong. You can look up a few dictionary definitions, and you'll find that it can mean "many".

 

In my opinion there is nothing more to say on the issue, when we have clear definitions, and quite a large percentage in this poll (although not the majority) agreeing with those definitions.

 

I argue that probably anytime a person uses the term "in general" they have no idea what the exact percentage of the target group is. At least that's the way it's always been used in my life. I think looking into it in such detail (if you're going to blatantly ignore the very clear dictionary definitions) makes the term seem to represent something that it doesn't, necessarily.

 

...

 

Um...Sloppy despite the cited sources used in that thread Center actually disagrees that my equation of

"X in general = the majority of X" is as equally valid as his. This despite him admitting one of the many possible definitions of generality is "majority".

 

He claims he proved my equation to be invalid.

 

Just sayin.

 

I agree that "in general" can be referring to either a "majority" or "many". But if you're making a logical conclusion, it's invalid when you say "X in general = the majority of X" because it doesn't necessarily equal the majority. In fact, my side of the argument is more true, because the word "many" can also mean a majority.

 

So "X in general = many" or "X in general can sometimes = the majority of X" are both more true than "X in general = the majority of X".

[Sloppy Zhang]

Um...Sloppy despite the cited sources used in that thread Center actually disagrees that my equation of

"X in general = the majority of X" is as equally valid as his. This despite him admitting one of the many possible definitions of generality is "majority".

 

He claims he proved my equation to be invalid.

 

Just sayin.

 

I refer back to my "getting stoned" argument.

 

If I said "I saw someone getting stoned this past weekend, it was hilarious"

 

And someone was like "hey, if you saw someone getting beaten to death with stones and laughed, you are a dick".

 

And I say "no, I meant someone who just got really high off marijuana. They were so out of it. They said some really funny stuff!"

 

Well, they would be incorrect in their definition. It may have been logically consistent that they took one meaning of "getting stoned". But "getting stoned" is also a pretty prevalent colloquialism.

 

It's not that you necessarily have to prove they are "wrong", so much as you are more right and they are less right.

[JustARandomPanda]

Sigh....

 

Why do I get the impression nobody understood what I was trying to state? Damn I suck at making understandable posts.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Um...Sloppy despite the cited sources used in that thread Center actually disagrees that my equation of

"X in general = the majority of X" is as equally valid as his. This despite him admitting one of the many possible definitions of generality is "majority".

 

He claims he proved my equation to be invalid.

 

Just sayin.

 

Sigh....

 

Why do I get the impression nobody understood what I was trying to state? Damn I suck at making understandable posts.

 

Sorry

 

I think the key phrase is "not necessarily".

 

"X in general CAN = the majority of X"

 

There are cases in which it does, but there are also cases when it doesn't necessarily mean that.

 

So as far as I understand center/scotty, he's saying that yes, you are right, ""X in general = the majority of X" IS valid. But it is not the ONLY valid option out there.

 

So if he was meaning another option, then in his statement, "X in general does NOT = the majority of X".

 

He's not claiming your equation invalid period. He's claiming your equation invalid in this situation.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Stigweard]

Sigh....

 

Why do I get the impression nobody understood what I was trying to state? Damn I suck at making understandable posts.

It's cool matey, I've been picking up what you are laying down all along.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

It's cool matey, I've been picking up what you are laying down all along.

 

 

But if you keep picking it up, she'll have to keep laying it down

[Aetherous]

So as far as I understand center/scotty, he's saying that yes, you are right, ""X in general = the majority of X" IS valid. But it is not the ONLY valid option out there.

 

So if he was meaning another option, then in his statement, "X in general does NOT = the majority of X".

 

He's not claiming your equation invalid period. He's claiming your equation invalid in this situation.

 

Yes, I'm saying that she is right in some cases, X in general = the majority of X. But because it's not true in all cases, you can't say it's a valid logical conclusion. It has to be absolutely true (in all cases) in order to be valid.

 

"X in general does NOT = the majority of X" isn't valid either. Because in some cases, it does.

 

So the only way to make a legitimate logical conclusion (one which is always true) is to say something like: "X in general can sometimes = the majority of X".

[JustARandomPanda]

Any of you going to make the "Reboot" thread?

[Sloppy Zhang]

Any of you going to make the "Reboot" thread?

 

Hell no!

 

I wouldn't even know where to start even if I wanted to.

 

Anyone with a chip on their shoulder, with an axe to grind, or half a mind to play word games can warp it into something that it isn't, causing reverberations which could destroy this very forum!!!!!

 

I'm about to add it to the list, along with "politics" and "religion", that you shouldn't bring up if you want peaceful dinner conversation