> You are the one who started talking about "scammy".
Not really? You said "con artist", did you not? "Scammer" is a near one-for-one replacement, I said "scammy" because "conny" isn't a word.
> I did NOT say "start-ups are con artist and/or bullshitter".
This is absolutely the implication of what you said.
If I say, "I don't know how I feel about Ted Cruz, I don't like voting for rapists", then I didn't explicitly say that Ted Cruz is a rapist, but that's the obvious implication. If you start talking about how Americans are more accepting of con artists while in the middle of an explanation of why Americans are more positive towards start-ups, it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots in what you're trying to say.
If your point was more broadly about dubious/unreliable claims, that's fair, but "con artists" is a lot more specific and critical than that, and that's what I was responding to.
Anyway, you're probably right that Americans are more tolerant of dubious/overambitious claims from a cultural perspective. I'm not sure if they're more tolerant of outright lies though, I think most draw a line between stretching the truth vs breaking it in half.
And again, "con artist" was not talking about start-up.
> This is absolutely the implication of what you said.
That is incorrect. I can see why you can interpret it like that, and indeed I should have been more clear, but it's just incorrect to pretend that there is a logical implication.
It's more like saying "I don't know how I feel about Ted Cruz, but then again, once, I voted for a rapist". In this case, it does not mean that I imply that Ted Cruz is a rapist, it just mean that my bar is as low as voting for a rapist. It does not mean I'm saying Ted Cruz is a rapist, it can totally mean that Ted Cruz is probably therefore above the bar. This is way more what I've said in the previous comment: "US people are less uncomfortable with start-up that will have unrealistically ambitious claims, but then again, US people are less unforgiving with con artists, so it's not surprising".
> but "con artists" is a lot more specific and critical than that, and that's what I was responding to.
And again, even if we go to the "start-up / scam" discussion, none of that is saying that all start-up are scam or that none of the non-start-up are not scam, but again, some start-ups are scam, this is just a fact. You seem to react like if saying that some start-ups are scam is going to far.
Not really? You said "con artist", did you not? "Scammer" is a near one-for-one replacement, I said "scammy" because "conny" isn't a word.
> I did NOT say "start-ups are con artist and/or bullshitter".
This is absolutely the implication of what you said.
If I say, "I don't know how I feel about Ted Cruz, I don't like voting for rapists", then I didn't explicitly say that Ted Cruz is a rapist, but that's the obvious implication. If you start talking about how Americans are more accepting of con artists while in the middle of an explanation of why Americans are more positive towards start-ups, it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots in what you're trying to say.
If your point was more broadly about dubious/unreliable claims, that's fair, but "con artists" is a lot more specific and critical than that, and that's what I was responding to.
Anyway, you're probably right that Americans are more tolerant of dubious/overambitious claims from a cultural perspective. I'm not sure if they're more tolerant of outright lies though, I think most draw a line between stretching the truth vs breaking it in half.