 Now, it appears that for the debates at a crossroads of theory of meaning and ethics, the crucial understanding of defaultness is that of salient emergent meaning in conversation. As we have seen here, such defaults can be abused – a topic that is of interest to pragmatics as well as to theories of argumentation. Let us consider one more snapshot, this time an example of an argumentative strategy of decontextualisation, where instead of inferring the default interpretation (in the sense of the automatic, most salient interpretation for the context), the addressee reacts to the decontextualized semantic content of the speaker’s utterance. This is traditionally called ‘the fallacy of ignoring qualifications’ (secundum quid or secundum quid et simpliciter, loosely translatable as ‘what is true in a way and what is true absolutely’. It is a form of deceit that, as Macagno (2022) argues, is best explicated in a broader pragmatic context of ignoring not only what is explicit but also of what is implicit: