The alternative would be to say that even if I haven't ever seen cakes without icing,
they're still in the set of things I refer to when I say 'cake'. But that's just crazy.
( Comma, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 21:53, archived)

Or that when I say something
I refer to a rough amalgamation of all of the predicates, but a few are dispensible. But that seems crazy too.
( Comma, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 21:57, archived)

the present king of France is bald

( mr horrible up yours, dickface, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:00, archived)

Well in this case 'iced' is a dispensible predicate.
The reason being it's not a necessary predicate that's generally associated with cakes. If everyone else agreed that cakes must be iced, then it would be in the same category as batchelor.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:01, archived)

If 'cake' necessarily entailed icing
you wouldn't have chosen it as your example.

If no-one had any significant experience of cakes without icing, the word 'cake' would necessarily entail icing.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:01, archived)

That's what I'm saying.
But doesn't that seem weird and wrong?
( Comma, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:04, archived)

No. Why?
Only because you choose something you know and then give it a "weird and wrong" definition.

If all blee consists of crawt and fleem, then blee without fleem is just crawt. Or fleemless blee.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:07, archived)