Generalizations

[Logical Realist]

DinoDoc: 1) The recent trend of using the dictionary as most of the text in your posts is starting to become annoying.

2) It might help your point if you actually said why you feel that Christians are the scum of the Earth as opposed to defending your right to such a generalization.

1) I'm just defining the word. So that we can use an established definition and avoid confusion. To avoid having to deal with a straw man "generalizations must apply to all or none" argument.

2) This post isn't about Christianity. But generalizations. That;s not based on feeling but deduction.


Urban Ranger: good point. There are also biased samples and anectdotal evidence. I'm not debating on Christianity and its effects here but generalization as such. My Christian examples were just examples. Hypotheticals.


Guynemer: That is a rather dogmatic attidtude and a bit of a red herring. The topic of this thread is not religion but generalization. To say all who disagree with you are "uneducated" is dogmatic. And fallacious "ad hominded". You should refute my points on this thread and not criticize my examples.

[Logical Realist]

se·man·tics Pronunciation Key (s-mntks)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form:

All debates involve a fair amount of semantics. That refutation is meaningless. If you think an argument can be ignored just because it uses "semantics" show me the source for that.

Notice how your refutation itself was based on semantics.

[Asher]

All debates involve semantics, the boring debates revolve around semantics.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by devilmunchkin
not everyone on the board posts the same old complaining tripe.

I take it you never read LR's Arguing with the dictionary thread which was written in the same annoying train of thought?

[blackice]

I said it was about semantics, which it is. It's like arguing over if Y is a vowel...over and over and over and over and over

Similar to reading your tripe over and over again...Look if you don't like the topic move on. Why is it people have to read YOUR opinion over and over and over and over again move on. Some people may want to converse

[devilmunchkin]

I never said it was about christianity.

i never said you did. i said guynemer.

and asher: if you don't like it, don't ruin it for the rest of us who might LIKE this sort of debate. thanks.

i think alot of you are to quick to judge him......you assume too much. you complain abou tthe length but then assume that he posts about the same thing every time. come on people..that isn't hospitable.......you're making a BAD impression......i'm almost embarrased by your attitudes in a place where i was once enthralled.

[Asher]

Originally posted by devilmunchkin
i'm almost embarrased by your attitudes in a place where i was once enthralled.

If your friend had any other motive other than trolling (here) or flaming (FFZ) he may have had a warmer welcome.

[Logical Realist]

I take it you never read LR's Arguing with the dictionary thread which was written in the same annoying train of thought?

That "annoying train of thought" is called logic. It only annoys the illogical and closed minded.

[blackice]

I agree one hundred percent...It seems thier world is the only world...limited as it is.

[Ramo]

What Asher and Dino wrote...

[blackice]

[QUOTE]If your friend had any other motive other than trolling (here) or flaming (FFZ) he may have had a warmer welcome.[/q]

this is a classical example of a god complex...what you think everyone here loves you?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Logical Realist
That "annoying train of thought" is called logic. It only annoys the illogical and closed minded.

It's not logical to base entire arguments off a single dictionary definition's interpretation of a word to jump to conclusions.

What are you taking in college, btw?

[Logical Realist]

If your friend had any other motive other than trolling (here) or flaming (FFZ) he may have had a warmer welcome.

Trolling is when you do anything for attention.I am trying to make a serious point about a serious subject. How is this trolling? And what does ffz have to do with this paticular discussion?

Your like or dislike of me does not effect the truth-value of my argument.

[devilmunchkin]

i agree with some of what you said. but i msut say:
how is one to go about discerning between hasty generalizations and on target ones?
SOMe groups, no matter how you look at the data, aresimply to large to be throw into a big category. There are too many sub groups within extremely large groups. I wouldn't think it would be easier to perhaps generalize a group that is limited in size and to a specific geographic location. But some of your generalizations haven't been limited to those categories...but rather to the opposite: enormous groups that have many subdivisions spanning the globe.
might we be able to generalize serial killers in america? possibly. but world wide? i think there might be enough environmental differences between them to incur a difference in the serial killing patterns or in mental patterns.
also, at what point do you say that certain definitions of semantics are self evident?

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice

If your friend had any other motive other than trolling (here) or flaming (FFZ) he may have had a warmer welcome.

this is a classical example of a god complex...what you think everyone here loves you?

How the hell is that a god complex? Where did you get the impression that I think everyone here loves me?

Man, what are you on?

You seem to be making some pretty harsh generalizations there upon nothing. It seems that you don't even understand the semantics of what you're saying, blackice.