As a final remark, consider the use of the word “dairy [products]”. A good way to start an argument is to ask if this classification includes eggs. (This is pertinent to me, since I’m allergic to both milk and eggs. I want to make sure people don’t give me butter, so I say “no dairy products”, and then I either say “or eggs” or “including eggs”. Experience has shown that neither of these phrasings will avoid an argument.)
Really? If you say “no dairy products or eggs” people will argue? This seems to imply each of:
They don’t understand what a dairy is or where eggs come from.
They don’t understand how logic works. (The flexibility of “Or” is usually a convenient way to express things colloquially while also being technically correct.)
They think their misunderstanding of both is sufficiently important as to justify arguing with the correct usage.
“Or”, in casual conversation, is typically interpreted and meant as being, implicitly, exclusive (this is whence the ‘and/or’ construction). It’s not how “or” is used in formal logic that they would misunderstand, but rather, whether you meant it in the formal-logic sense.
Really? If you say “no dairy products or eggs” people will argue? This seems to imply each of:
They don’t understand what a dairy is or where eggs come from.
They don’t understand how logic works. (The flexibility of “Or” is usually a convenient way to express things colloquially while also being technically correct.)
They think their misunderstanding of both is sufficiently important as to justify arguing with the correct usage.
“Or”, in casual conversation, is typically interpreted and meant as being, implicitly, exclusive (this is whence the ‘and/or’ construction). It’s not how “or” is used in formal logic that they would misunderstand, but rather, whether you meant it in the formal-logic sense.