Replies

You are simply wrong about the standard meaning of classes in ordinary English usage, and about the logical relations between classes and their members. The latter has been known with some exactness since the scholastics, at the latest. The twin fallacies of composition and of division expose the slips routinely committed in misuses of logic in merely verbal wordplay, which generate scads of false syllogisms. You should have learned this in your first year of college, if it wasn't covered in your high school.

When something is predicated of a class, it is not thereby predicated of every member of that class. See the example of wages of progammers for a typical common use. Classes or compositions may in general have attributes entirely distinct from those of their members. E.g. the set of all integers is not an integer. Sodium and chloride are each poisonous, sodium chloride is not poisonous.

Statements about classes that are explicitly meant to run downward without exception are verbally marked by quantifiers, by saying "all" or "every". A statement about a class without such a universal quantifier does not mean "some", either - one may be speaking of an attribute of the class as such e.g. the cardinality of the integers is aleph null. Which does not imply that the cardinality of any integer taken separately, let alone of each of them taken separately, is aleph null.

When a statement is meant to run downward without being universal, but is not restricted to an attribute of the class as distinct from its members, it may be marked by "some" or in more careful context, by "there exists a ... such that ..."

When something is predicated of a member, it is not thereby predicated of all classes of which that something is a member. See the example of salt, above, which is an instance of the related fallacy running in the other direction, the fallacy of composition.

Distinctions are allowed to "tree" orthogonally in any desired manner, controlled by the speaker and his intention, and read charitably in the senses intended. Speakers are not responsible for marking up their speech with exact quantifiers in ordinary usage - they are expected to be understood. Forced readings of another's statements that change them in order to make their statements seem less reasonable, are another well known sophistic tactic, the straw man.

You simply don't have a leg to stand on. Coulter never said eagles are rats, and she did not imply it either. You are attempting to put words into her mouth, but it is hopeless. The words are in your mouth, not in hers.

Gibber gibber gibber. The verbosity of this attempted reply to a simple question is a clear indication you're stuck in a corner, and are trying to snow your way out.

In ordinary English usage, is the statement "women are whores" true or false?

In ordinary English usage, if you were presented with pictures of two prostitutes and Mother Teresa, would the statement "these women are whores" be true or false?

A statement about a class without such a universal quantifier does not mean "some", either - one may be speaking of an attribute of the class as such e.g. the cardinality of the integers is aleph null. Which does not imply that the cardinality of any integer taken separately, let alone of each of them taken separately, is aleph null.

That's laughably irrelevant. In saying 'birds are like rats', we are not claiming that being like a rat is a attribute of the class Aves, but not of individual birds. That would be a category error. We are making a statement about the individual members, and their resilience.

We're speaking English here, not C++. Try to remember that.