You don’t have to, but that is absolutely the correct interpretation when ‘anarchists’ is further qualified only by, ‘pet’, which only implies ownership. That’s even worse than calling anarchism naive. That’s implying anarchists are so dumb as to be considered pets.
No, in English a descriptor not only means that they’re only refering to a specific subgroup, but that the general group doesn’t universally have that trait. So it’s saying both that only the specific anarchists described in the OP are pets, and that anarchists aren’t usually pets.
So if I say I have a pet gamer does that mean gamers are normally pets? If I say I have pet giraffe does that mean giraffes are normally pets? No, obviously not, because that’s not how language works.
You don’t have to, but that is absolutely the correct interpretation when ‘anarchists’ is further qualified only by, ‘pet’, which only implies ownership. That’s even worse than calling anarchism naive. That’s implying anarchists are so dumb as to be considered pets.
To be fair, I do have a harem of pet anarchists
Call that a polycule
No, in English a descriptor not only means that they’re only refering to a specific subgroup, but that the general group doesn’t universally have that trait. So it’s saying both that only the specific anarchists described in the OP are pets, and that anarchists aren’t usually pets.
Not how language works.
So if I say I have a pet gamer does that mean gamers are normally pets? If I say I have pet giraffe does that mean giraffes are normally pets? No, obviously not, because that’s not how language works.