And I think you don’t like admiting it’s bit of an clickbait title.
My comment was very clear; I disagree with both, the assumption made in the title and I equally disagree with it after reading the subtext. Implying all boomers with birdfeeders hate squirrels is over-generalization.
Yeah, I know how clickbait titles work. “Who do boomers with birdfeeders hate squirrels so much” would’ve been the accurate and non-clickbait version of this one. It’s no different from a news headline saying “USA will ban ICE cars by the year 2035” and then in the article itself it specifies that it’s about the sale of new cars.
That’s besides the point anyway. My argument equally addresses the over-generalization made in the body, which you conveniently ignore and focus on defending the title and attacking me as a person rather than what I’m saying, ad hominem.
Every boomer with a bird feeder hates squirrels.
That is an absolute statement claiming that every single boomer with a bird feeder hates squirrels. Not 50% of them, not 80%, not 99%, not 99.999% but 100% of them. That is an over generalization which I disagree with which leads us back to my original comment; I disagree with the premise. Not every boomer hates squirrels. Not even every boomer with a bird feeder.
The title talks about boomers in general. Only in the subtext is it specified to mean the ones with birdfeeders.
I feel like you don’t understand the relationship between a title and the body text.
And I think you don’t like admiting it’s bit of an clickbait title.
My comment was very clear; I disagree with both, the assumption made in the title and I equally disagree with it after reading the subtext. Implying all boomers with birdfeeders hate squirrels is over-generalization.
It’s a quick title that leads into more detail in the body, as titles often do. I think you’re just regarded AF.
Yeah, I know how clickbait titles work. “Who do boomers with birdfeeders hate squirrels so much” would’ve been the accurate and non-clickbait version of this one. It’s no different from a news headline saying “USA will ban ICE cars by the year 2035” and then in the article itself it specifies that it’s about the sale of new cars.
That’s besides the point anyway. My argument equally addresses the over-generalization made in the body, which you conveniently ignore and focus on defending the title and attacking me as a person rather than what I’m saying, ad hominem.
That is an absolute statement claiming that every single boomer with a bird feeder hates squirrels. Not 50% of them, not 80%, not 99%, not 99.999% but 100% of them. That is an over generalization which I disagree with which leads us back to my original comment; I disagree with the premise. Not every boomer hates squirrels. Not even every boomer with a bird feeder.
Not reading your disgruntled wall of text, just blocking you. Go scream into a pillow.
Sure, you too.