This diary originated as a comment I made is response to another comment on Newsvine - "White males for Obama :rise"by Coral Atlas
More below the "squiggle"
Every white man is not rich
I think a lot of our problems in discussions are fostered by statements of this type and thinking of this type.
We all "know" what it "means", but the problem is that what it says is NOT what we all think it means.
As an example of what I'm trying to elucidate, let's take that old chestnut:
"All that glitters is not gold."
What does it actually say? Okay, it first describes two sets of attributes:
1) "things that glitter", and
2) "things that are gold".
It then states that "all things" -- that is, "everything" -- that have the first attribute do NOT have the second attribute.
So what it really says is that "Everything that glitters is not gold."
Thus the original statement is false on it's face.
For proof, it lets to this valid but factually wrong deduction:
"All that glitters" is NOT "gold".
Gold glitters.
Therefore gold is not gold.
Now what we all "understood" it to mean is really:
"Not every white man is rich."
But that's not what it said. This sort of confusion leads to useless arguments.
I know you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. (Midge Clark Baker)
We all need to pay closer attention to what people are really saying and respond to that. And stop responding to what we think people said.
And hopefully it will lead to less vitriol, more understanding, and a whole lot more civility.