D
deleted1138933
Guest
For the last time, learn how this language works. If you do not qualify a group, then your statement includes the entire group. "Birds have feathers" doesn't imply "some birds" it implies all birds. "Women want big cocks" does not imply some women, or only women you've talked with, it implies all women. As long as you continue to ignore this important language distinction, you'll continue to annoy and draw criticism.
Your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. The context of everything you wrote before it was women. Then you wrote about "they" being "hung". Who is "they"?
Do you see how your writing is fucked up?
This language and all language does not live in a vacuum on its own, it is shaped, formed, impacted, influenced, and functions within cultural standards, norms and understandings. It is, or should be, generally understood that generalized statements are not absolute. It is taken for granted that there may be exceptions. When one communicates with other said speakers of the language, it is expected that they are versed in these aforementioned factors. When trends are observed and communicated, general statements are made to reflect those experiences:
“Doctors recommend . . .”
“Economists are predicting . . .”
“Young college graduates are finding . . .”
De we assume that there are exceptions and that not all mentioned are included? Of course we should. Do we expect every single individual to be personally named and referred to to make the point? Of course not.
It is the responsibility of those stating to be versed in such language to know and understand those language subtleties.
All birds have feathers. What a about this?
And to my last sentence, “they” refers to the men in this site. Again, subtleties.