As a regular in the Lost threads (and as the person who had the most posts in that thread until Cisco surpassed me when the Brouhaha of Banality ensued), I’m offering my comments. I am not interested taking sides – I don’t care who “wins” – I’m just calling it like I saw it when I was participating in that thread.
Point 1:
Cisco’s refutation of the original assertion was completely valid.
Too bad we don’t always use quantifiers for clarity – but spoken language is full of shortcuts. Clearly the arguing parties were interpreting things differently… and unfortunately getting bent out of shape about it.
I also thought it was completely obvious how to interpret the statement, but it differs from yours. Here’s why.
When a general blanket statement is made, of this form:
- Items in category X are Y, or Items in category X have property Y
…you know, things like this, where quantifiers aren’t explicitly given:
- Women are stupid. Boy scouts are male. Dogs have fur.
- Human albinos have blue eyes
… logically speaking, universal quantifiers are implied (e.g. every, all, or in the case of a negative statement, “none”) by the sentence form. These definitive statements, when asserted as fact, imply definitions or specifications of defining properties. Such an assertion can of course be invalid – like “women are stupid” – I’m sure there’s at least one counterexample! 
(Nice reply, though, Contrapuntal – it made me laugh).
And if that’s not enough, consider the full context of the original statement. It wasn’t just “Human albinos have blue eyes.” It was:
“Human albinos have blue eyes. Not pink.”
This parses into two related assertions:
- Human albinos have blue eyes.
- Human albinos’ eyes are not pink.
Cisco’s counterexample link was clearly a refutation of (2) – regardless of how anybody chooses to interpret (1). Or does anybody really think that statement (2) should be quantified with a “typically”? If somebody says, “Albino eyes are not pink”, did they really mean “Sometimes they are pink”?
If I make the assertion, “Monstre is not a god” – is there an implied quantifier here? Did I really mean “Monstre is typically not a god, but sometimes…”? Be careful how you answer, lest I be given the power to smite thee.
Regardless of intended quantifier, Cisco was responding to what was said.
Point 2:
While I agree that Cisco’s argument was perfectly valid, and I completely understood his intent… IMHO he did help escalate the squabble by overreacting in his responses. This comment:
comes across as condescending. Cisco was accurate in pointing out the discrepancy between the two statements by PerditaX in that post, but I’m sure there was a nicer and more tactful way to say it.
And Cisco, I must say, when you responded to this:
I did think you were way more defensive and confrontational than necessary, especially when this whole thing was over such a tiny bit of irrelevant trivia. I understood from the start that your contention was just a refutation of the statement “Albinos don’t have pink eyes”, nothing more. But I didn’t see Frylock’s statement as an attack – just a mistaken interpretation of your post (and there was the parenthetical that basically invited a correction). With such an angry response to a mistaken guess, no wonder Frylock’s hackles were getting raised, too.
Point 3: (my turn to rant a little)
What… the… Fuck.
All this was in a “Lost” thread, for Chrissakes. I’m sure that most of us participating in “Lost” discussions don’t give half a shit about the ratio of blue eyes to pink eyes to purple-poka-dot eyes in the general Albino population of the world. So why do we have to wade through a ridiculous two page hijack-turned-into-a-bitch-slap-fight in a thread that should be a light-hearted and fun discussion about one of our favorite TV shows?!!
Who knows, maybe there is an appropriate place for anal-retentive pedantry regarding albinos and their eyes, but this wasn’t it. I felt like I was trying to watch a movie while a small group of kids were running around the theater and in front of the screen, angrily squealing, yelling, and pushing each other.
How about all y’all go sit in the corner until you can calm down and play nice? And quit hijacking the “Lost” threads to argue about stupid minutiae! (Or do I need to go all Tree Crushing Monstre on your asses?)
Lastly, I’m amused by the third Google ad at the bottom of page 1 of this thread – the link is “Used Cisco Hardware”.
Sorry, Cisco – but I’m just not interested in your “hardware”. :eek:
Now, HazelNutCoffee, on the other hand… rowrrr!
