If your theory is universal and includes itself in what it's talking about, then that theory itself must be impacted by its own truth or assertion. Otherwise, the self-exemption destroys it's universality.
"Not all" logically equals only some. Not all.
But if it's not true as a universal, then why was it ever constructed as a statement itself in the first place?
If you're not being an intellectually hypocritical liar, why not just use the word "some" or even "most"? Instead of the typical social dilettante's absolutistic claiming of universal X about A?
Where's the agenda'd bigotry now?
In the future, rash precocious adolescents will ask these questions. And they won't be kind. I will be the one who looks kind in retrospect.
Which views can say something about all views and not have to be treated accordingly, and which one's can't? Whose ox gets gored is the streetwise truth here. It's about getting the intellectual upper hand before you have any opportunity to say anything.
See how it works, kickin-it mental party-ravers?
Or if I'm wrong about that, then pray tell why would any self-contradictory or self-referringly contradictory claim ever be stated to another person in the first place, and in repeated unargued verbal rituals in all social situations?
Constant repetition---and without any argument. Someone is trying to convince themselves of something that just somehow won't convince, all the while running interference against any scrutiny that might reveal the telltale, implicit (the more the better), but quite fatal self-reference contradiction.
