Crito

On my way to work, I heard these lyrics emanate from my car's speakers: "Rhythm. Either you have it or you don't -- that's a fallacy!"

I understood that to mean "it's a fallacy to claim that you either have rhythm, or you don't have rhythm."

But is that a fallacy? Doesn't the word "not", used in this context, represent the complement? In other words, isn't it valid to categorize items into two categories (i.e., having a characteristic or Not having that characteristic)?
If it is, then we can rightfully say that a person either has rhythm or does not have rhythm. Correct?

Sure, people may vary in their degrees of rhythm, but that does not mean a person with "verly little rhythm" has no rhythm.

-Crito

Toto

I think that when you say - "Rhythm, you either have it or you don't" - you mean that there is no use trying to learn rhythm. If you don't have it, you never will.

I don't know if this is true or not.