More precise knowledge is available beyond the most general quantifiers. Which is to say, “some” is not logically incorrect, but it is further away from accurate than (for example) “a few” or “hardly any.” You make me sorry I semi-defended your earlier post.
Thanks for the comment. Given an unknown, ‘Some’ is the only valid quantifier. To claim ;few; or ;hardly any’, one would have to cite specific values. I do not believe that was done in the post to which I responded.
You could also have the ambiguous “many”, it inherently sounds like a lot. Faux news makes a living on it.
Yep, that’s the point.
Yes, of course. What I meant was, it isn’t just the two choices.
You are correct that there are several choices of words. But they do not logically quantify an argument.
If you have sufficient data to support a value then you can state it. If no data then it is ‘some’.
‘Many’ has no value either absolute or by comparison. Can you assign a value to many? In the study I cited, sexually associated anthropomorphisms all scored above 80%. I quantified that as ‘some’.
In math, a 1 labels all values from 0.0 to 2.0. 1.0 labels a single known value.
The equivalent in sentential calculus is ‘none’, ‘some’, ‘all’. Terms like '‘few’, ‘many’ and ‘hardly any’ are technically classified as bullshit (“On Bullshit”, Harry Frankfurt) because they are stated without knowledge of the actual values. Interestingly they could be correct and still be bullshit because it is a bluff.
No
Also no
You are correct 1.0=1.0± .05
Also no but somewhat understandable in that case.
I yield to your wisdom and welcome enlightenment.
Can’t. The link is dead.
You mean the article that surveys the sexual attractions of male furries? The one that makes absolutely no mention of bestiality at all, let alone claiming that furries are actually into bestiality?
Someone mentions bestiality, and you brought up an article on furries. These have nothing to do with each other. The word “some” is not even appropriate given that your cite doesn’t mention zoophilia at all. Everyone mentioned in that abstract is talking about being attracted to humans—even if they’re humans who like to imagine they are anthropomorphic animals.
Surely it should be obvious that treating a group of harmless people as the same as people who rape animals would be offensive to them. Surely it’s obvious that a group that is continually growing and even has full on cons would not be fans of an illegal act. It’s not like there are pedo-cons.
I honestly thought you were just trolling, trying to link the two.
Well… they even have “con” in the name.
The conversation has wandered too far afield from the original intent.
That’s a laugh, coming from you.
Okay, my sockdar got all tingly today. Check out the contributions of Snooppuppy.
Joined 2 days ago and immediately jumped right into some controversial topics like a seasoned pro.
Maybe I’m just paranoid. So far not especially trollish, but maybe a bit sealionish in the “queer” thread in ATMB.
It’s super obviously a previous poster back to troll some more
Haha! Came here to post exactly that. 100% trock.
Thank you, they have been removed for now, but I’m sure they will be back.
I’m glad I saw these posts as it got me to check and I saw the serious trolling it was doing. Not at all suspicious when a new poster goes into speed posting mode in 3 threads of a similar theme.
- Why was this useage of “queer” offensive?
- So “ammosexual” is a sexually offensive word now?
- and jumped into the Latinx (Your thoughts on the term)
Sucks. I was enjoying their postings until the shitshow in the “queer” thread.