"Not many" can also mean "none" according to the above logic, so you're correct. But calling me a moron out of the blue while we're talking about the same is uncalled for.
"Literally" it does. But that is not the meaning of "not many", and the problem is that many expressions do not have literal interpretations because they are figures of speech (of sorts).
...
so let's not be smart asses...
The person who wrote this assumed that all conversation was logical. If spoken language were a consistently logical construct we wouldn't need programming language for computers, you could use plain language. There is no singular set of logical rules that apply to spoken language and this is why computers can't understand human language as instructions. For instance: "Women are beautiful." Logically we need to specify which women. "(All)(some)(these)(most)(those)(etc)women are beautiful" since we have not specified a default value must be assigned. Humans use context to assign these values. In context when I say "I hate vegetables" I am not likely saying I hate these vegetables, or some vegetables, but all vegetables. Absolutes are by nature illogical as well, but one can infer the qualifier: "in my experience base." Thus we have illogical speech requiring the listener to infer, it is illogical to assume they will think exactly as you do and thus can cause misunderstanding.
Absolutely, the most frustrating thing about language is that it can never be taken as its written. Context is always important, but we must also be sure that we're seeing the right context as well.
It only applies though if the speaker and listener parse the same. When views and opinions differ, such as where a difference in culture, language, or education are present, it's more likely that precise linguistics can't be used effectively and we must again rely on open interpretation. More so in a world of short character limits and shorter attention spans, where brevity often leads to people using ad hoc or imprecise communication.
The person who wrote this loses a lot of arguments and tries to win by shouting "logical fallacy" at their opponent. Do they not know about intent? Usually when people say "many apples are red", (hoo boi the person who made this totally wasn't trying to defend the baseless accusation that many black people are criminals, they just use a colour metaphor riiiight? I hope you can smell my sarcasm) , they mean most apples are read because that was their intent. This post is a logical fallacy in itself.
Someone keeps going through and down voting anyone trying to point out the obvious faults in trying to apply this logic, or pointing out that logic asides word choice can influence emotional response to a statement or create subtext. Uovote for you guest.
...
so let's not be smart asses...
Person B: “That’s wrong, all lives matter”