Sure I would, because it's statistically true anyway. An outlier is an outlier.
And the existence of an outlier does not preclude a general rule, and vice versa.
Which means that, in our extended metaphor, not only should you not eat anything from the bowl, but you should kill the jackass that offered it to you in the first place.
Majority can't be rounded up to an absolute and claimed as a factual statement. No statistician would say 95% IS 100%. Using 'statistic' as an adjective doesn't give your false claim credibility. That's not proper statistics. Not all immigration is warfare. Saying things that aren't true is wrong.
Even IF one of the M&Ms isn't poisoned, I still wouldn't eat any.
But you wouldn't claim something false like that ALL the M&Ms are poisoned.
I'd claim that it's enough that I don't care how many are poisoned. It's too many to risk eating any.
It might as well be all of them.
Regardless, you would be sensible enough not to actually make a false statement, because you believe that it's wrong to say things that aren't true.
Sure I would, because it's statistically true anyway. An outlier is an outlier.
And the existence of an outlier does not preclude a general rule, and vice versa.
Which means that, in our extended metaphor, not only should you not eat anything from the bowl, but you should kill the jackass that offered it to you in the first place.
Majority can't be rounded up to an absolute and claimed as a factual statement. No statistician would say 95% IS 100%. Using 'statistic' as an adjective doesn't give your false claim credibility. That's not proper statistics. Not all immigration is warfare. Saying things that aren't true is wrong.
Whine all you please about petty semantics. We're done eating from the bowl, and we're going to shove it back.
But I would still say I don't want this brown M&M in my bowl of white M&Ms.
That doesn't enter into it. I'm arguing against making incorrect statement of facts.