Announcement

**DinoDoc** · March 18, 2002, 03:22

Originally posted by Logical Realist
I don't see what makes my points simplistic or irrelevant.

IMO, The thesis that generalizations can, in certain circumstances, be logically justified is simplistic (read: boring) due to the fact that you provided no real reason why such an obvious assertion is of any import.

**Logical Realist** · March 18, 2002, 03:23

The point: To inform the general public. I have been in a debate before on those threads regarding whether or not generalizations can be made at all. The main criticism of my generalizing at all, consisted of people pointing to exceptions. Many went as far as to imply that generalizations cannot be made at all. I wished to discuss the point of generalizations exclusively. So that it can be given the focus and thought it deserves(not just get treated as a sub-topic). That is all. It seems to me that these criticism were mainly fueled by an misunderstanding of what a generalization is. To that end I defined what one is.

The point is thus mainly that generalizations can be accurate, and that exceptions don't disprove a given generalization.

**Asher** · March 18, 2002, 03:23

te·di·ous (td-s)
adj.
1. Tiresome by reason of length, slowness, or dullness; boring. See Synonyms at boring.

**KrazyHorse** · March 18, 2002, 03:26

Bastard! Get your own ideas!

http://www.counterglow.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2402

**Asher** · March 18, 2002, 03:27

You didn't have the balls to do it here so I did it for you.

**Kaak** · March 18, 2002, 03:27

great...the fool returns...

Meaning if it holds true 51 percent of the time....the generalizations is accurate.

The simple fact of the matter is, a generalization WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG some of the time. You seem to want to give it 49% margin for error. I hope you make all your life decisions with only 51% certainty.

**blackice** · March 18, 2002, 03:32

blackice: I really enjoy how you're aligning yourself here. You apparently don't even understand what the thread's about, and are positioning yourself just to make personal attacks against the usual suspects (namely me). I know you don't like me. I don't like you. Move on, post something somewhat insightful (maybe in English this time), then move out.

Well the control freak told me

I will not agrue with you no I will just continue to make you look like the fool you are grow up man life is big...Move on, english notice how you contradict yourself on a regular basis? Anyone else see that?

Blackice, why don't you do us all a favor and type your replies in Word, run the grammar checker, then post them here. It's bad enough already, the last thing I want to do is figure out what you're trying to say. Could you also summarize what his argument is? I think it'll be really interesting to see what you think his point is

No it seems to annoy you only so I will continue. You mind

control freaks are at best food for little people

I'm a control freak because I (like 99% of the world) really hate dry, dictionary-semantic type arguments?

No because you think and agrue all should agree with that...do you see it yet?
.

Look, you posted an entire thread defining a "generalization." This is extremely boring material, LR. Your post begs the question, "what's the bloody point!?"

If you have not got it yet why are you here?

amazing speaking of attacking one just because..if you are not interested change the bloodly chanel

Some people must be really hard up for action?

quote:

te·di·ous (td-s)
adj.
1. Tiresome by reason of length, slowness, or dullness; boring. See Synonyms at boring.

Asher you learned this early and well passed with honors I bet

hypocrite

\Hyp"o*crite\, n. [F., fr. L. hypocrita, Gr. ? one who plays a part on the stage, a dissembler, feigner. See Hypocrisy.] One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety.

The hypocrite's hope shall perish. --Job viii. 13.

I dare swear he is no hypocrite, but prays from his heart. --Shak.

Syn: Deceiver; pretender; cheat. See Dissembler.

There is one you can relate to Asher, you do it well...Example:

The whole idea is simplistic, LR.

You're the type of person that likes the sound of his own voice. You use large words when smaller words are just as valid, you make long winded posts citing many sources clearly defining what you're talking about. People expect it's leading up to something, then you just stop. There's no real point to it, you're basically making an observation based upon definitions on whether generalizations are valid or not.

Which begs the question: What are you on? or... What is the point?

I can not think of anyone that qualifies for this better than you...

IMO, The thesis that generalizations can, in certain circumstances, be logically justified is simplistic (read: boring) due to the fact that you provided no real reason why such an obvious assertion is of any import.

Cool so why are you resonding

left hand tired?

You didn't have the balls to do it here so I did it for you.

Speaking of penil envy...

As we all should Kaak..

**DinoDoc** · March 18, 2002, 03:33

Originally posted by Logical Realist
The point: To inform the general public.

If you truely expected the post to be read by a general audience then the post could have been at least 1/2 of its original length. This isn't a college essay where padding the lenght of your point helps you. Just the opposite in fact.

I have been in a debate before on those threads regarding whether or not generalizations can be made at all.

Then this point should have been brought up in the context of a larger debate thread if you wanted it to be taken seriously. The assertion as you phrased it in your original post is over broad and only gets you responses along the lines of Ramo's.

**Asher** · March 18, 2002, 03:36

Originally posted by blackice

Well the control freak told me

I will not agrue with you no I will just continue to make you look like the fool you are grow up man life is big...Move on, english notice how you contradict yourself on a regular basis? Anyone else see that?

Alright, now I'm firmly convinced that you're a drug addict of some sort.

No because you think and agrue all should agree with that...do you see it yet?

Because I think and argue I am a control freak?
Perhaps if you thought a bit and actually did some arguing rather than baseless flaming you'd get farther in life, rather than being the 43-year old computer repairman you are today. Something an A+ certified twelve year old could do.

There is one you can relate to Asher, you do it well...Example:

I can not think of anyone that qualifies for this better than you...

I'm sorry, maybe I should have changed the topic of the reply so that it's less tedious. The reason why it's tedious is because the subject matter is tedious. Figure that one out, Einstein.

**blackice** · March 18, 2002, 03:39

If you truely expected the post to be read by a general audience then the post could have been at least 1/2 of its original length. This isn't a college essay where padding the lenght of your point helps you. Just the opposite in fact.

Generalizing that it was his intention to do that? Point made again...In fact it would seem you are the only one with Asher that believe this so far...

Then this point should have been brought up in the context of a larger debate thread if you wanted it to be taken seriously. The assertion as you phrased it in your original post is over broad and only gets you responses along the lines of Ramo's.

Ramos as if he cares, generalization again. points made again

In fact your whole arguement here is based on generalizations

I would love to know the fishing lures he uses

**devilmunchkin** · March 18, 2002, 03:40

this is ****ing pathetic

this isn't an LR bashing thread. It's a serious debate. get off yourself and go ***** about it on ffz....or cg..yeah..they already have an anti-LR thread there.
You *****ed when he didn't give a common ground of definitions to start from...now you ***** when he does. if all you want to do is relax and have fun...that's what cg is for. people like asher who currently don't want to think or like Kaak who are just carrying out pathetic personal vendettas.

**Asher** · March 18, 2002, 03:41

Ramos as if he cares, generalization again. points made again

In fact your whole arguement here is based on generalizations

I would love to know the fishing lures he uses

Is it okay for me to generalize you as having an extremely low IQ because you can't grasp fundamental concepts of the English language at age 43? Well, bad example...

**Kaak** · March 18, 2002, 03:41

there is no personal vendetta. I think him a fool, and his posts continue to assure me that i'm right.

**Logical Realist** · March 18, 2002, 03:43

blackice:

Dinodoc: I don't write posts like that because I want the public to see every step I take in my reasoning. Cutting down my post would make me look like I was taking unwarranted leaps which anyone could point to as fallacious. I think the public is for the most part, smart enough to see past bad reasoning. So I try to be as careful as possible when making points like I did. If anyone has a serious interest in the subject, they won't care about its length.

**devilmunchkin** · March 18, 2002, 03:43

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight kaak....you just keep telling yourself that sweet pea.

good god
he's right
athiest network is better

Announcement

Generalizations

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment