Readers following the great pasta and sauce debate, not to mention a later offhand comment about generic nouns, can probably guess that SC prefers to use the most specific term available to describe something, while Mrs. SC sticks to more general ontological classes.
An amusing example of this happened a few days ago when we went to a local Mexican fast food place. All of their burritos/tacos/etc. are available with chicken, beef or pork. Now, neither SC or Mrs. SC is likely to order pork. So it was no great surprise when SC ordered a burrito with beef. However, Mrs. SC managed to confuse the cashier by saying, "I'd like mine with meat". The cashier asked, "What kind of meat?", and got the reply, "Meat!". Your host having astutely picked up on it by this point, he quietly reminded her that "meat" isn't generally synonymous with beef. After we finished paying, Mrs. SC pointed out that as far as she's concerned, they are the same. Exactly what ontological status this assigns to chicken and duck is left as an exercise for the reader.
It is, however, entirely possible to be too specific when generic terms are more appropriate. Not long after, your host went for another burrito (not at the same place), and heard the opposite dialogue take place. Chipotle, the restaurant in question, offers four basic menu items, with a choice of two kinds of beef, chicken, pork, or vegetables. The food is assembled by being passed from one worker to another along a bar, much as is done at sub sandwich shops (like the home of the nefarious Jared). On this trip, SC heard the worker responsible for doling out meat ask the customer in front of him, "What kind of beef do you want?". The customer said, "I don't want beef", and got the reply, "But what kind of beef do you want?". At that point, he picked up on it, and replied "Chicken", which resulted in his receiving the desired poultry.
There are, of course, at least two ways to look at mismatches of this sort. One is to consider them as pragmatically uncooperative statements, which are true but unhelpful. Another is to adopt the stance that adult hearers ought to have enough world knowledge to either figure out what the speaker meant or ask a differently phrased question for clarification. These aren't actually entirely mutually exclusive, but their dumbed down forms -- "Blame the speaker!" and "Blame the listener!" -- are. It shouldn't be all that hard to figure out which is SC's preference.