You can infer additional information when that information isn’t present. Like if you say “A certain system that can […]”, then that sentence refers to a specific system but doesn’t say which. You can infer from context that it’s the US. But if you say “The US system, which can […]” then you cannot infer that “The US system” actually means the Canadian system because it’s clearly stated that it’s the US system. There’s no missing information to infer. In this case, it says “A system”. As you said, that means any system. All systems. We’re given complete information on the subject. There’s nothing to infer.
Maybe what you’re thinking of is that the current context of this post is the recent US election, so the timing of this post is an implicit reference to that. But the reference isn’t meant to change the meaning of the statement. It’s used as evidence to support it. i.e. “This kind of system is bad in general. Look at this example in which it is bad.” and not “This kind of system is bad in general. But not in general.”
Edit: Alternatively, there can be cases where you should interpret a sentence as something different from what was actually written, and that’s when you have reasonable cause to believe they meant the other thing. Here, both the general statement and one specifically about the US are statements that someone can reasonably make so most people will interpret the words exactly as written.
then you cannot infer that “The US system” actually means the Canadian system because it’s clearly stated that it’s the US system. There’s no missing information to infer.
That’s why I didn’t do that dipshit, you stated all, not me.
Maybe what you’re thinking of is that the current context of this post is the recent US election, so the timing of this post is an implicit reference to that. But the reference isn’t meant to change the meaning of the statement. It’s used as evidence to support it. i.e. “This kind of system is bad in general. Look at this example in which it is bad.” and not “This kind of system is bad in general. But not in general.”
That’s the additional info you absolute brickbrain.
It’s a trap! :D Just because he can come up with a different way to make the same general statement does not mean the original in the post is not general. ;)
Imagine a world where there’s exactly one person who was born was purple hair and they happen to like cookies. You say “People with purple hair like cookies”. It narrows down the pool of existing people to exactly one, but you’re still making a general statement about all people with purple hair. You’re saying that anyone in the past who may have had purple hair also likes cookies. Anyone in the future born with purple hair also likes cookies.
That’s one feature, this is at the very least two features that describe one country at the moment and we all know which it is.
You could read it generally but that would be generally stupid.
And notably the statement is factual, the fact that some countries don’t have 4 year election cycle and 4 year campaign cycle proves both their point and mine not mr.always.
It’s written specifically in reference but with just enough obscurity to say it could be anyone, anyone with a brain knows it’s not. To answer your question I wouldn’t change it at all, it’s fine. The only one playing this dumb game is you and your alts.
How do you imagine language to work if you don’t have a way of communicating what you want to communicate? Both the general and specific statement are reasonable for someone to make in this context, so there should be a way to express both.
I agree that you can reasonably make this specific statement about the US. I don’t agree that this is what OP said, because the general statement is also valid, and they used the words to convey that it’s a general statement.
You can infer additional information when that information isn’t present. Like if you say “A certain system that can […]”, then that sentence refers to a specific system but doesn’t say which. You can infer from context that it’s the US. But if you say “The US system, which can […]” then you cannot infer that “The US system” actually means the Canadian system because it’s clearly stated that it’s the US system. There’s no missing information to infer. In this case, it says “A system”. As you said, that means any system. All systems. We’re given complete information on the subject. There’s nothing to infer.
Maybe what you’re thinking of is that the current context of this post is the recent US election, so the timing of this post is an implicit reference to that. But the reference isn’t meant to change the meaning of the statement. It’s used as evidence to support it. i.e. “This kind of system is bad in general. Look at this example in which it is bad.” and not “This kind of system is bad in general. But not in general.”
Edit: Alternatively, there can be cases where you should interpret a sentence as something different from what was actually written, and that’s when you have reasonable cause to believe they meant the other thing. Here, both the general statement and one specifically about the US are statements that someone can reasonably make so most people will interpret the words exactly as written.
Duh
That’s why I didn’t do that dipshit, you stated all, not me.
That’s the additional info you absolute brickbrain.
The criticism was about the generality, not the implicit evidence.
No one is talking about it generally regardless of how its phrased. No one.
How would you phrase it if you did want it to be a general statement?
It’s a trap! :D Just because he can come up with a different way to make the same general statement does not mean the original in the post is not general. ;)
It’s not general at all. If I say “someone like” and describe you head to toe? Is that general or is that specific and targeted?
Imagine a world where there’s exactly one person who was born was purple hair and they happen to like cookies. You say “People with purple hair like cookies”. It narrows down the pool of existing people to exactly one, but you’re still making a general statement about all people with purple hair. You’re saying that anyone in the past who may have had purple hair also likes cookies. Anyone in the future born with purple hair also likes cookies.
That’s one feature, this is at the very least two features that describe one country at the moment and we all know which it is.
You could read it generally but that would be generally stupid.
And notably the statement is factual, the fact that some countries don’t have 4 year election cycle and 4 year campaign cycle proves both their point and mine not mr.always.
It’s written specifically in reference but with just enough obscurity to say it could be anyone, anyone with a brain knows it’s not. To answer your question I wouldn’t change it at all, it’s fine. The only one playing this dumb game is you and your alts.
How do you imagine language to work if you don’t have a way of communicating what you want to communicate? Both the general and specific statement are reasonable for someone to make in this context, so there should be a way to express both.
Then you agree with me and you’ve been arguing for no goddamn reason dipshit.
I agree that you can reasonably make this specific statement about the US. I don’t agree that this is what OP said, because the general statement is also valid, and they used the words to convey that it’s a general statement.