RE: Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread
May 7, 2018 at 12:30 pm
(This post was last modified: May 7, 2018 at 12:38 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
In the specific context of intellectual debate, I do not feel compelled to couch and qualify every generalization to protect people’s feelings. It is not unfair opining that men are taller than women despite the fact that “some” women are taller that “most” men. Citing outliers on the Bell curve or notable exceptions to a rule doesn’t invalidate a generalization. Nor does maligning the character or metal stability of the opinion holder have any bearing on the applicability of his generalization. The proper response to an unfair generalization is to show that by-and-large it doesn’t hold true. Statistical observations are not signs of prejudice. The defining feature of actual bigotry is stubbornly maintaining that what generally applies to a group necessarily applies to a particular individual.
With respect to my generalizations quoted earlier in this thread, I was confident the people to whom I was speaking directly would not require much elaboration to get my point. By filling in the unnecessary assumptions of my generalization and eliminating metaphorical language, any reasonable person can see my intent, as follows:
[In my opinion, most] AF members [by-and-large] are closed-minded to the Gospel [even though they may be otherwise open-minded people]. [In my opinion] the lot [i.e. seen as a group, they] embrace mischaracterizations of doctrine that shield them from the actual message of Christianity.
I do not much care for being called a psychopath, a callous bastard, snide, or having various mental illnesses attributed to me BUT neither do I take any of those offensive speculations personally. Those shoes do not fit so I’m not going to wear them, "sticks & stones", etc. (Unlike being a somewhat snobby pompous ass which I know I can be on occasion, especially with respect to IPAs). The only reason for writing this post is to remind these slanderers that generalizations should not be always be interpreted as personal attacks and that a conversation focused on ideas need not carefully attend to the feelings of people outside the conversation.
With respect to my generalizations quoted earlier in this thread, I was confident the people to whom I was speaking directly would not require much elaboration to get my point. By filling in the unnecessary assumptions of my generalization and eliminating metaphorical language, any reasonable person can see my intent, as follows:
[In my opinion, most] AF members [by-and-large] are closed-minded to the Gospel [even though they may be otherwise open-minded people]. [In my opinion] the lot [i.e. seen as a group, they] embrace mischaracterizations of doctrine that shield them from the actual message of Christianity.
I do not much care for being called a psychopath, a callous bastard, snide, or having various mental illnesses attributed to me BUT neither do I take any of those offensive speculations personally. Those shoes do not fit so I’m not going to wear them, "sticks & stones", etc. (Unlike being a somewhat snobby pompous ass which I know I can be on occasion, especially with respect to IPAs). The only reason for writing this post is to remind these slanderers that generalizations should not be always be interpreted as personal attacks and that a conversation focused on ideas need not carefully attend to the feelings of people outside the conversation.
