Generalizations

[Kaak]

oh really? perhaps stupid is the wrong word. The simple fact of the matter is, you like to talk about christianity like you are an expert, when in fact, you have know idea what it is to be a christian. You apply General rules (many of which aren't even acknowledged by christians today) and apply them to very specific situations. Your arguments make blatant oversights, and when brought to your attention, you simply state that you have nothing more to say.

[devilmunchkin]

this is one bizarre, schizophrenic thread

[blackice]

You've proven nothing. You've posted a dozen time saying "grow up here's right lol lol lol look hes right lol lol lol look at that hes right lolol i wonder bait what he uses lol lol your wrong face it your wrong haha lol lol move out of mother basement haha lol lol".

Really That grow up comment seems to erk you...how come?

So when did they let you out of the institution?

Just after your daycare got out..random..generalizations again you prove his point. Again i need not prove anything YOU have done it. I will watch as you ignore this and continue on your tricycle to personal happiness

[Asher]

You know who blackice reminds me of?
That skit on SNL with the curly-haired brothers who make stupid comments and laugh every second.

[Kaak]

blackice:? huh?

[Logical Realist]

If this is the case generalizations must inherently be made in reference to something else. This reference often determines their relevance, signifigance and overall merit. Therefore, by the very nature of generalizations, you cannot justify them in themselves.

Two conclusions might be drawn from this:
1) your argument is competely without merit on its own
2) if you have something to reference it to, which is would be logical, you aren't telling us what it is.

Kaak we are talking about generalizations as such, not generalizations about something. I am not justifying generalizations via generalizations but am instead saying that generalizations are often times valid via the established definition of generalizations and the nature of induction as a whole. All your saying is that I cannot establish an applied generalization via tautology, which I had no intention of doing.

All of induction is based on generalizations, Kaak, so if you want is one example of generalizations used successfully: try chemistry. Chemists have not messed with every H20 molecule and hence are not absolutely sure that two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen will make water every single time. But most would be willing to be a billion dolars on it, as would I. This is an example of proving something via a working example.

To deny generalizations flat out than one would have to deny all of what science has learned, since it is all generalizations via induction.

And yes analogies do offer explanatory power sometimes. I notice someone brought that up, Plato for example used a famous one called the Allegory of the Cave, if you really don't think so try refuting his argument in front of philosophers on the basis of the fact that "its an analogy", see what response you'll get. I'd suggest you bring an umbrella though in perperation for the fallout.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Really That grow up comment seems to erk you...how come?

Because you're 43 years old and you act like you're 8, with the intelligence of an 8 year old to boot, and you're telling ME to grow up? That's just insulting. Moreso than anyone else telling me to grow up.

Just after your daycare got out..random..generalizations again you prove his point. Again i need not prove anything YOU have done it. I will watch as you ignore this and continue on your tricycle to personal happiness

Tell me, what is his point?
His point was the "common sense" assumption that "not all generalizations are created equal", but are generally right. Kudos to you guys, that's why they're called generalization.

It doesn't mean anything, it's stupid to post an pseudo-intellectual thread about it and act pretentious. Then you come along, armed with ignorance, ineptitude, and gross misunderstanding, and start slamming around random comments backing up what he said, when everyone else has long moved on to talk about how he presented his post.

Get a clue, man.

[blackice]

oh really? perhaps stupid is the wrong word. The simple fact of the matter is, you like to talk about christianity like you are an expert, when in fact, you have know idea what it is to be a christian. You apply General rules (many of which aren't even acknowledged by christians today) and apply them to very specific situations. Your arguments make blatant oversights, and when brought to your attention, you simply state that you have nothing more to say

As I followed the other thread (Asher will Sh*t) Explain what makes your definition right? Is there a general rule to be a christian? Your way or the highway rule?

this is one bizarre, schizophrenic thread.

mainly because of Asher's assumption's and generalizations the rest is logical

[devilmunchkin]

oh really? perhaps stupid is the wrong word. The simple fact of the matter is, you like to talk about christianity like you are an expert, when in fact, you have know idea what it is to be a christian. You apply General rules (many of which aren't even acknowledged by christians today) and apply them to very specific situations. Your arguments make blatant oversights, and when brought to your attention, you simply state that you have nothing more to say

believe it or not i USED to believe in god..with my whole heart. And then i began to look around me. If you've really been looking at alot of what i've said, you'd see how i point out that people should be judged on an individual basis and how i know ALOT of really cool xians..some are my best friends.
what i've always liked to ask is WHY these general rules arn't applied? If the OT is not longer relevant, then why publish it? I've noticed this as well..my former church only read out of matthew, mark, luke and john. There are other xians i know who think this is wrong. others think it's right.
You criticize me when i point out that NT really doesn't emphasize the sin of sodomy (even though it's widely practiced at the time) and then criticize me if i do. I'm sorry i can't do right by you kaak. Seems like you have a personal problem here.
But i also dont' think YOU have any right to tell me what i do or don't know about theology (very different from being a PRACTICING CHRISTIAN. see..i NEVER discuss matters of FAITH. just THEOLOGY...the study of it) seeing as how you arn't a theologian..but a christian...and one that openly admits to being less than devout.
you're answer to things i say is call people names. that's hardly academic and perhaps that's why i don't take you seriously.

[Kaak]

hmmm...

Chemists have not messed with every H20 molecule and hence are not absolutely sure that two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen will make water every single time.

How much chemistry have you had? do you want my bank account number to send me the money?

besides, chemistry follows natural law, and there are always anomolies. Your point of analogy i wholeheartedly agree with. They prove their relavence by reference to the specific. And analogies muct be very very carefully weighed before accepted, but that is something else entirely.

[devilmunchkin]

your answer is to repeat what he said?
i thought you were going to get serious here kaak.

[blackice]

Because you're 43 years old and you act like you're 8, with the intelligence of an 8 year old to boot, and you're telling ME to grow up? That's just insulting. Moreso than anyone else telling me to grow up.

again with the grow up did I hit a nerve?

It doesn't mean anything, it's stupid to post an pseudo-intellectual thread about it and act pretentious. Then you come along, armed with ignorance, ineptitude, and gross misunderstanding, and start slamming around random comments backing up what he said, when everyone else has long moved on to talk about how he presented his post.

Get a clue, man

This is your opinion right?.

[Kaak]

nah, DM, i often copy and paste in the reply widow, so i can read, reply, delete, read some more...i just hit the wrong button

[Logical Realist]

The simple fact of the matter is, you like to talk about christianity like you are an expert, when in fact, you have know idea what it is to be a christian. You apply General rules (many of which aren't even acknowledged by christians today) and apply them to very specific situations.

This post isn't about Christianity. That was an example.

BTW general rules are applied to specific cases all the time, after they have been built up already via previous observations and evidence.

That's how science and most types of reasoning work. For example when you buy some aspirin you are applying a general rule, (that aspirin helps headaches) to a specific case. (Your current headache). The aspirin is generally believed to help with head aches on the basis of what was found via tests on humans and other animals starting from past recipes. The whole process of generalizing and then applying a generalization works two ways in a nice reciprocal system.

[blackice]

You know who blackice reminds me of?
That skit on SNL with the curly-haired brothers who make stupid comments and laugh every second.

cool at least I have substance notice how they ignore you?