November 07 POTM

It's not a fallacious argument.If you define a property as "all-red", where a given set has the property "all-red" if all of its members are red, then the union of a set that has the "all-red" property with a set that has the opposite property "not-all-red" winds up having the property "not-all-red", even though that looks like the fallacy of hasty generalization. It's actually a consequence of the fact that something defined as a universal property has an opposite property that, itself, is not universal.In other words the opposite of "all" is "some", not "none."Nontheless, Jon, it's wrong of you to try to bring the argument here in such a sarcastic way. If you'd like to actually address the post you're referring to, that would be great, and I can move this material over to that thread. You should delete your post, it's a misuse of the POTM thread and a violation of the forum guidelines. You should really know better.