Timeline for Is there a name/term for phrasing something such that to disagree implicates yourself?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 2017 at 22:17 | history | edited | MetaEd | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improve markdown to differentiate answers from examples
|
| Feb 10, 2012 at 4:25 | comment | added | MetaEd | The public is not, as a rule, great at logic. Language like the OP's examples is intended to sway, not convince rationally. In fact it is usually better if the public does not analyze very carefully. | |
| Feb 10, 2012 at 1:39 | comment | added | ruakh | I think that "Now available in all good stores" not only implies that stores without it aren't good, but actually entails as much. If there are good stores that don't have it, then the statement is false. (Sorry if that's already what you meant; mathematicians use "implies" in a much stronger sense than most people, and maybe you use it that way, too?) | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 15:04 | history | answered | MetaEd | CC BY-SA 3.0 |