I like the transition from “I have an issue with what you said” to “I have an issue with what I imagine you said” after getting clarification
That aside the statement was fine as written. For example it takes deliberate and active misunderstanding to twist the statement “people eat meat” into “there aren’t any vegetarians”
Hang on, no, imagine if someone said "people eat meat" and it was the core part of an argument that people need a minimum of 2 acres of farmland to support their food consumption. It would be important to point out that vegetarians and vegans need less than an acre.
The context matters and blanket statements can be misleading in certain contexts.
If there was really nothing wrong with the original phrasing about rich people, then there's also nothing wrong with GP's phrasing about poor people. The usages are exactly parallel.
You wrote wealthy people tell themselves that poor people are lazy.
Yes, I did. There’s a word that was inserted into what I actually wrote.
Just to clarify. What percentage of wealthy people do you believe think this?
Is 10% too high of an estimate for wealthy people that believe this? 50%? 75%? 90%?
Where would you throw the dart of your estimate and how wide do you think your error bounds are?
By that logic, it is then accurate to say poor people are lazy.
Sure. Knock yourself out. I won’t lose any sleep over it.
I like the transition from “I have an issue with what you said” to “I have an issue with what I imagine you said” after getting clarification
That aside the statement was fine as written. For example it takes deliberate and active misunderstanding to twist the statement “people eat meat” into “there aren’t any vegetarians”
Hang on, no, imagine if someone said "people eat meat" and it was the core part of an argument that people need a minimum of 2 acres of farmland to support their food consumption. It would be important to point out that vegetarians and vegans need less than an acre.
The context matters and blanket statements can be misleading in certain contexts.
If there was really nothing wrong with the original phrasing about rich people, then there's also nothing wrong with GP's phrasing about poor people. The usages are exactly parallel.
he wrote "many" wealthy people, not all.
To be fair, I added that, after being called on it. It was a fair point, but I also didn't mean "all," so I just clarified the meaning.