Although the exception proves the rule, which means this: if there is a single counter-example, it surely isn't constructive. For instance if all but one of the CEOs that VCs replaced founders with sucks, the final one (Cisco CEO) is not a meaningful counterexample, he breaks the rule for reasons other than being a commissar CEO--there would have to be more counterexamples for this counter-effect to be borne out. Likewise, if all but one gangster has a gun, the one gangster that doesn't have a gun is by all means purely motivated by fucking with people's logic. That single gangster without a gun means nobody can say "gangsters have guns", it's then considered a stereotype, it's discrimination. But if the reason that one gangster does not have a gun is strictly to achieve that effect, of allowing the arguments that enemies of gangsters are saying stereotypes, are discriminating, then he is IN ON IT. And after all he is by stipulation a gangster, a synonym of conspirator, a gang is a conspiracy, read the RICO act. So he is in on something, and in this case he is helping other gangsters get away without getting stopped and frisked because of his counterexample which makes enemies of the gangsters recoil at the fear of being accused of discrimination. That's the main fear of white people (who call themselves whites, but I call white people because I was raised among wolves ie in South America) so whites in California, they want anything but being accused of racism, anything. Everybody's so afraid of being accused of racism. Accused of murder but of murdering another white, that yes, but not of saying a slur, then you lose your job your wife leaves you your kids get bullied by the racist black bullies in the public school nobody will fix your car your landlord jacks up the rent your credit falls you're on the news at 7 you're spat on and lacerated you're targeted by black vigilantes the police won't help you et cetera et cetera et cetera et motherfucking cetera.

Plus the bigger the world gets, the more globalized, the harder it is to say "P implies Q". Can't say "therefore". Gotta always say "it could be anything", never rule things out, always broaden things out but never narrow things down. No exclusion. No conjunction.

Like suppose you're living 100 years ago, and you see a lot of chicken bones, say "no chicken bones are black". Some chicken bones are tan, or brown, or yellow, or chicken-bone colored it's weird, but none are black. You noticed a pattern. You go test your hypothesis at the 4H fair, and it's consistent. 100% solid. Then you announce it in a letter to the editor in the newspaper, and it gets published, but you get accused of being racist because someone found a chicken with black bones in Indonesia. Your claim is all the stronger! If they had to go all the way to Indonesia to find a black-boned chicken then that means this side of the Pacific there are no chickens with black bones, and that's what we care about, that's our context. There's no limit to how far you can travel, if the disprover has to travel to Alpha Centauri to find a counterexample, then that tells you how shitty his argument is for going that far. It's not that a counterexample exists, it should really be about how far out of a context we have to go to find it.

Or like what? Am I expected to check the entire universe for a counterexample? So the issue is this makes ruling things out impossible, and therefore logic impossible, and therefore thinking impossible, you can say "x is a or b or c" but you can't say "x can't be d or e or f". The more globalization, the more ruling out gets eroded, though it's asymmetrical because the bitchvictim media does not abide by that rule, rules out the idea someone born in America can speak Chilean Spanish dialect natively, for instance. Nobody does that. I do that. So it's about not letting you think, not allowing reasoning, except for themselves who decide who is victim and who is victimizer. The bitchvictim media. Intolerance of intolerance impedes logic, and therefore thought, and therefore speech, it's a form of censorship. Not letting you say "therefore".

The exception proves the rule. Meaning, if there is only a meaningless counterexample which is not substantially motivated by the generalization being counterfactual, it is a valid generalization. If all but one Rottweiler eats babies, it's certainly a counterexample manufactured by eg the Rottweiler Breeder's Association to disprove a stereotype, like a Rottweiler trained all his life for nothing except not eating babies. Which is bullshit, because everybody else is going to want that Rottweiler for other things not just not eating babies, and won't be able to train it for that single counterfactual purpose. And if they don't do that 14 hour a day training regimen with the diet it involves, it will eat babies, so like...fuck.

And it might be that the Rottweiler Breeder's Association is making up the fact that it doesn't eat babies, like using special effects on a green doll or a really small little person adult actor to impersonate a baby next to a placid Rottweiler. You don't know, you don't check the pixels for After Effects video manipulation, nobody talks about After Effects making an actor's biceps consistently bigger in an entire movie, and unlike me you don't get a spinal reaction telling you it's a deepfake. Even the single counterexample might be a load of shit. Like might have just fed him a chimp baby before the commercial, so the Rottweiler is sated of baby. Spesh because if they only need to come up with one counterexample to eg let Rottweilers be seeing-eye dogs for blind 6-year-olds--which is big business--then they have infinite resources to photoshop that one baby, infinite resources for that single forgery.

Now to exonerate Rottweilers--a breed I like which is why I chose it--let me say I've seen amazingly trained Rottweilers doing a whole skit with their master. But at the same time, there was no baby nearby, so I can't argue with the concept that they eat babies. It's just a generalization. I am going to respect that generalization, not leaving my own babies around a Rottweiler.

I have seen a much smaller dog that consistently got very hungry and angry when under 3 feet from a baby (but not when it was farther away, it knew when it could lunge and when it couldn't, it was a bad bitch), snapped at it and all--and it could be for any reason, baby smell, poopy diaper, but likely small size and obvious vulnerability while at the same time being a lot of warm meat. Big investment of human biomass meaning his mother's biomass, and dogs think human biomass is the best biomass. And some animals eat their own babies, that's eating a baby.

Back to the cute argument, I think your exception proves the rule.

Have you ever eaten a bunny?