1of 2, A YT history, Bad business and an Underhanded concession

informal "sets":

Corey's argument was: (((--~all languages, all humans, facts about language, facts about us, We are all like this ~--)))

Corey's concession became: (Piraha, animals ) --((--all modern languages, all western humans, facts about recursive language, facts about us moderns, We moderns are all like this ~--)))

My Argument is: ({non recursive set} piraha)--All Languages, all humans,--(--facts about modern language, [-Recursive set-} facts about us moderns, We moderns are like this ~-)-- We are all like this.-~~-)-~({non recursive speculative set}))

All I wanted (& finally got) out of Corey and anyone else who generalizes humans or language is a qualifier like: Moderns, westerns, recursive, those of us who would be likely to see this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrbDtZKmFLs

at 740 you claim language (at large) is historical, when Everett suggests otherwise

850 "YOu didn't like the math" then at 914 "aren't ALL people to the extent that they speak able to do math?" Well the answer to that question is NO.

And so you in a later video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSTE01t6kjU at 850 you contract your claims of language to "those people who would be watching this video" hence not those Other humans or languages that wouldn't be watching. ~--it's a contraction to Western Moderns, no? Yet you framed it in such a way that I don't seem to "be able to understand". How underhanded.

You just won't outwardly concede or contract a claim and you certainly wouldn't do so by putting someone else in a highlight. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAJb6dyXNxk