Sometimes rationalist-y people and lawyers really like to use/​insist on maximally precise/​literal language or legalese. I have a word for lawyers who do this in my business interactions with them; shitty lawyers.
I’m somewhat sympathetic to these people since it allows for exact communication and for some, it makes truthful information sharing easier. However, this just isn’t how the world works. What you point to simply isn’t fraud by the commonplace usage of the word. What you mean is that by your interpretation, they should advertise 285 piglets/​dollar and not 354 and that you don’t think their reason for stating 354 isn’t well supported.
Again, this over-the-top and inflammatory language is hurting rather than helping you and the animal welfare movement.
Sometimes rationalist-y people and lawyers really like to use/​insist on maximally precise/​literal language or legalese. I have a word for lawyers who do this in my business interactions with them; shitty lawyers.
I’m somewhat sympathetic to these people since it allows for exact communication and for some, it makes truthful information sharing easier. However, this just isn’t how the world works. What you point to simply isn’t fraud by the commonplace usage of the word. What you mean is that by your interpretation, they should advertise 285 piglets/​dollar and not 354 and that you don’t think their reason for stating 354 isn’t well supported.
Again, this over-the-top and inflammatory language is hurting rather than helping you and the animal welfare movement.